\<9 Cornell University Library KF 154.A512 1896Suppl. Supplement to the American and English e 3 1924 017 799 267 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017799267 SUPPLEMENT TO THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW (SECOND EDITION) EDITED BY DAVID S. GARLAND and CHARLES PORTERFIELD UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JAMES COCKCROFT Volume I. NORTHPORT, LONG ISLAND, N. Y. EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY London: C. D. CAZENOVE AND SON, 26 Henrietta Street 1905 Copyright 1896, 1897, 1898, BY EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY. Copyright, 1905, BY EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY. All rights reserved. HOW TO USE THE SUPPLEMENT. THE titles of the articles and defined words and phrases are repeated in the order in which they are to be found in the American and English Ency- clopaedia OF Law, Second Edition. At the top of each page are given the name of the subject and the pages thereof which are supplemented by refer- ence to and statement of the late cases. Thus : 956-961 AGENCY. Vol. I. at the top of a page signifies that pages 956 to 961 of the article " Agency " in the first volume of the Second Edition are supplemented. In both text and notes the catch lines which appear in the Second Edition are here repeated in connection with new cases, thereby denoting that such new cases support the statement of law made in the text or notes of the Second Edition under the corresponding catch line. The large heavy- faced figures refer to the pages of the volume of the Second Edition. The smaller figure following the page number in the notes refers to the original note numbered by that same figure on that page. Thus, a note numbered 950. 2., with cases cited, indicates that those cases support the proposition to which the cases in note 2 on page 950 were cited. In some instances the new cases have necessitated the writing of new text, and the fact that such text is new is indicated by inclosing it with brackets. In the notes great freedom has been indulged in stating new illustrations and applications. The omission of a title that appeared in the Second Edition implies that no new cases on that subject have been found. SUPPLEMENT TO THE American and English Encyclopaedia of Law (SECOND EDITION.) 1. A. — See note I. ABANDON. — See note 2. 2. See note i. 1. 1. Used aa an Equivalent of " The." — See Wastl v. Montana Union R. Co., 24 Mont. 159. " A Marriage." — In an action for annulment of marriage it was contended that " a mar- riage," as used in Civ. Code Cal., § 82, pro- viding that a marriage may be annulled for certain causes, meant only that for one of those causes a marriage ceremony may be an- nulled, but that, if a plaintiff admits the exist- ence of marriage without the a, he cannot invoke the remedy provided by that section. The court said : " We see no such distinction in the code. Marriage means, generally, a certain existing relation or status, and a mar- riage can mean nothing more than this same status as existing between two particular per- sons." Linebaugh v. Linebaugh, 137 Cal. 26. " A Judge." — The adjective a, commonly called the " indefinite article," because it does not define any particular person or thing, is entirely too indefinite, when used in a state constitution' providing that " the state shall be divided into convenient circuits, each circuit to be made up of contiguous counties, for each of which circuits a judge shall be elected," to define or limit the number of judges which the legislative wisdom may provide for the judicial circuits of the state. State v. Martin, 60 Ark. 343- I Supp of L. — 1 2. Abandonment of Goods in Bonded Warehouse. — Anglo-California Bank v. Secretary of Treas- ury, (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 749. 2. 1. Barnett v. Dickinson, 93 Md. 267, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed,) 1, a; Canton Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 99 Md. 202; Cassell v. Crothers, 193 Pa. St. 363, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1, 2 ; Scott v. Moore, 98 Va. 687, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1, 2. See also Nichols v. Lantz, 9 Colo. App. 1 ; Hough v. Brown, 104 Mich. 113; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Greenhood, 16 Mont. 395. Intent — Questions of Law and Fact. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Wagand, 134 Ala. 392; Gassert v. Noyes, 18 Mont. 216; Farmers' Irri- gation Dist. v. Frank, (Neb. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 286 ; Lockhart v. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 344. Abandonment Distinguished from Gift, or Barter, or Surrender. — Burdick v. Cameron, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 589. Abandonment of Children. — Gay v. State, 105 Ga. 599. Abandonment in the Sense of Desertion. — Simon v. Simon, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Eq. T.) 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 515. Personal Property. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Wagand, 134 Ala. 392, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) *. ABANDONMENT AND TOTAL LOSS (IN MARINE INSURANCE). By E. C. Ellsbree. 9. I. Definition. — See note 2. 6. III. Total Loss — 1. Divisions of the Subject. — See note 2. 2. Actual Total Loss — a. Definition. — See note 3. b. Destruction of Object Insured — (i) General Principles.— Sec notes K 7 7. c. 'Total Loss to Insured — (i) General Principles. — See note 2. 8. (2) Sale by Necessity. — See note 2. 9. (4) Particular Cases — (a) Memorandum Articles. — See note I. 10. See note 2. 11. (c) Freight. — See note 2. 13. (d) Total Loss Only. — See note 2. d. Total Loss with Benefit of Salvage. — See note 6. 13. 3. Constructive Total Loss — a. Definition. — See note 1. 6. Criteria — (2) Quantum of Damage — (a) English Rule. — See note 2. (b) American Bule. — See note 3. 5. 2. The C. F. Bielman, 108 Fed. Rep. 878, quoting i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 5. 6. 2. Western Assur. Co. v. Poole, (1903) 1 K. B. 376. 8. Soelberg v. Western Assur. Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 23, 55 C. C. A. 601. Notice of Abandonment Not Required in Cage of Actual Total Loss. — The Livingstone, 122 Fed. Rep. 278. The Sinking of a Ship constitutes an actual total loss, and such total loss is not converted into a partial loss by the subsequent raising of the ship by the underwriter. Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, (1898) A. C. 593. 5. When Subject-matter Loses Its Form and Species. — Asfar v. Blundell, (1896) 1 Q. B. 123. 7. Cargo. — If the thing insured is so changed in its nature by the perils of the sea as to be- come an unmerchantable thing, which no buyer would buy and no honest seller would sell, then there is a total loss. Asfar v. Blundell, (1896) 1 Q. B. 123. 7. 2. Illustrations — Loss of Cargo. — Where a portion of the cargo is recovered in a condi- tion to be transshipped, and suitable for the purposes for which it was originally intended, although not so suitable as it would have been if it had not been submerged in the sea, there is no absolute total loss. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine Ins. Co., 106 Fed. Rep. j 16. Capture. — A ship abandoned on the high seas was picked up and towed to Brazil, where she was placed in the hands of the court for the enforcement of salvage claims. These claims were paid by the underwriters. The Brazilian court thereupon sold both ship and cargo, and the underwriters were held liable for a total loss without any allowance for the amount paid for salvage. Buchanan v. London, etc., Marine Ins. Co., 65 L. J. Q. B. 92. 8. 2. Nova Scotia Marine Ins. Co. v. Churchill, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 65. 9. 1. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine Ins. Co., 179 U. S. 1, affirming 106 Fed. Rep. 116, (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 296; Devitt v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 173 N. Y. 17- 10. 2. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine Ins. Co., 179 U. S. 1, affirming 106 Fed. Rep. 116, (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 296. 11. 2. Trinder v. Thames, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (1898) 2 Q. B. 114, 78 L. T. N. S. 485. 12. 2. Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed on another point 175 U. S. 609. 6. Louisville Ins. Co. v. Monarch, 99 Ky. 578. 13. 1. Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed on another point 175 U. S. 609; Soelberg v. Western Assur. Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 23, ss C. C. A. 601 ; Devitt v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 390; McLain v. British, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 336. Necessity of Notice of Abandonment. — There can be no constructive total loss where no notice of abandonment is given. Western Assur. Co. v. Poole, (1903) 1 K. B. 383; Nova Scotia Marine Ins. Co. v. Churchill, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 65- 2. Ship. — See Trinder v. Thames, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (1898) 2 Q. B. 114, 78 L. T. N. S. 485 ; Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. v Mac- redie, (1898) A. C. 593. 3. One-half Loss to Ship. — Jones v. Western Vol. I. ABANDONMENT AND TOTAL LOSS. 14-35 14. (3) Imminence of Peril. — See note 1. 16. (4) Loss of Adventure — Inability to Repair. — See note I. 17. c. Computation — (2) Expense of Repairs and Transshipment. — See note 3. 19. IV. Right or Abandonment — 1. Election to Abandon. — See notes 2, 3. 2. Limitations of the Right — b. Peril Within Policy. — See c Depends on State of Facts. — d. Right of Insurer to Repair. - 3. When Abandonment Is Justified — a, See note 3. - See note 4. General Principles. See See note 4. 3© note 1. 31. 33. note 1. 34. b. Particular CASES — (1) Capture, Embargo, and Blockade — (a) In General. — See note I. 35. (2) Loss and Retardation of Voyage. Assur. Co., 198 Pa. St. 206 ; Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 fed. Rep. 491, reversed on an- other point 175 U. S. 609. Cargo. — Devitt v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 390; Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed on another point 175 U. S. 609; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine Ins. Co., 179 U. S. 1. 14. 1. TeBt of the Prudent Owner. ^- Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, (1898) A. C. 593 ; Angel v. Merchants Marine Ins. Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 811. See also Cunningham v. Maritime Ins. Co.', (1899) 2 Ir. 257, distinguishing Roux v. Salvador, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 266, 32 E. C. L. no. 16. 1. Sea damage which cannot be re- paired at a port within two thousand miles, and then only at a cost which exceeds the value of the ship, justifies an abandonment. Trinder v. Thames, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (1898) 2 Q. B. 114, 78 L. T. N. S. 485- The frustration of the undertaking insured justifies an abandonment. Musgrave v. Mann- heim Ins. Co., 32 Nova Scotia 405. An Exception in a Policy that the insurer shall be free from any claim consequent on loss of time, whether arising from a peril of the sea or otherwise, includes a case where the object of the voyage is frustrated by the combined effect of the breaking of a shaft, which is a peril of the sea, and the loss of time consequent thereon. Bensuade V. Thames, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (1897) 1 Q. B. 29. 17. 3. Expenses Incurred on Account of Cargo. — Where a policy provided that in determining the amount of loss " expenses incurred on ac- count of the cargo or any part thereof " should be excluded, expenses incurred in removing part of the cargo, that the vessel might float, were for the benefit of the vessel as well as the cargo, and they should not be excluded. Harvey v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co., 120 Mich. 601. 19. 2. Western Assur. Co. v. Poole, (1903) 1 K. B. 376. In Case of Undervalued Policy. — Abandon- ment must be the voluntary act of the assured. The demand and receipt of the full amount of the policy value on a policy undervaluing the ■hip does not of itself import any abandonment. In such a case the owner ma/ repair and retain his Ship, and recover of the insurers for the repairs up to the full policy valuation. This rule is of great importance on largely under- valued policies, since otherwise on partial losses the assured would often be unable to recover his full insurance without a sacrifice of the ship. The St. Johns, 101 Fed. Rep. 469. 3. Exception to Rule. — Where a policy pro- vided that there could be no abandonment ex- cept in case of absolute total loss, it was not necessary, in case of constructive total loss, to prove abandonment. McLain v. British, etc., Marine Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 336 ; Devitt v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 390, affirmed 173 N. Y. 17. Where Abandonment of No Benefit to Insurer. — An abandonment is indispensable in all cases of constructive total loss, except in those where it could not possibly be of any benefit to the insurer. Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed on another point 175 U. S. 609. 20. 1. Soelberg v. Western Assur. Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 23, 55 C. C. A. 601. 21. 3. Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. u. Mac- redie, (1898) A. C. 593, 79 L. T. N. S. 217. 4. Right of Underwriter to Repair. — In Eng- land it has been held that, where a vessel has sunk and notice of abandonment has been given, the insurer cannot reduce a total loss to a partial loss by raising and repairing such vessel. Sailing Ship Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, (1898) A. C. S93, 79 L. T. N. S. 217. 23. 1. Where the cost of repairs exceeds one-half of the value of the boat, and hence, under the provisions of the policy, there is a total loss, the insured is justified in abandoning the boat, and in claiming the full amount of the policy. Jones v. Western Assur. Co., 198 Pa. St. 206. 24. 1. Valid Abandonment Not Defeated by Subsequent Restoration. — Ruys v. Royal Exch. Assur. Corp., (1897) 2 Q. B. 135, 77 L. T. N. S. 23. 25. 4. Insurance on Cargo for Voyage. — Musgrave v. Mannheim Ins. Co., 32 Nova Sco- tia 405. A constructive total loss of cargo may arise by the loss of the ship under circumstances amounting to the destruction of the contem- plated adventure, when no part of the cargo can be forwarded by a substituted ship except at a cost beyond the value of the goods. In- 36-36 ABANDONMENT AND TOTAL LOSS. Vol. I. 26. 37. 89. 31. note i. 33. 35. 36. (3) Stranding and Submersion. — See note 3. (4) Sale by Necessity. — See notes 2, 3. (5) Freight. — See note 4. (6) Profits. — See notes 1, 2. (8) Total Loss of Part of Cargo. — See note 5. 4. Notice of Abandonment — c. Form and Sufficiency. — See d. Time of Notice. — See notes 2, 3. 5. Acceptance — b. What Amounts to Acceptance. — See note 2. 6. Effect of Abandonment — a. General Principles. — See note 4. surance Co. of North America v. Canada Sugar- Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed on another point in 175 U. S. 609. 26. 3, Submerged Vessel Baised. — See Sail- ing Ship Blairmore Co. v. Macredie, (1898) A. C. 593, 67 L. J. P. C. 96, 79 L. T. N. S. 217. Attempt to Recover Cargo Abandoned. — Where the insurers determined to try to recover the cargo of a sunken vessel, but afterwards aban- doned the project, and its situation was such that there was no reasonable probability that it could be recovered after the company withdrew the men and means provided for the purpose, the insured was justified in abandoning the property then submerged. Louisville Ins. Co. v. Monarch, 99 Ky. 578. Vessel Stranded Six Months. — Under a rule of a marine insurance company providing that a stranded vessel which is not saved within six months may be considered as a constructive total loss, the fact that the vessel might be saved at a future date does not prevent the operation of the rule. Rowland, etp., Steam- ship Co. v. Maritime Ins. Co., 6 Com. Cas. (Eng.) 160. 27. 2. Nova Scotia Marine Ins. Co. v. Churchill, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 65. 3. Impossibility of Obtaining Means of Repair at Point of Distress. — Nova Scotia Marine Ins. Co. v. Churchill, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 65. See also Angel v. Merchant's Marine Ins. Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 811. 4. Vessel Disabled — Cargo Delivered in Another Vessel. — Where the disabling of a vessel neces- sitates the transshipment of the cargo, it being of a perishable nature, a constructive total loss of freight results. Musgrave v. Mannheim Ins. Co., 32 Nova Scotia 405. 29. 1. The fact that a portion of the cargo was delivered to the insured, not in the ordi- nary course of the voyage, but by the insurer of the cargo, after a practical abandonment, and through a settlement as upon a total loss, in which such portion was received in part pay- ment, will not- prevent a recovery for a total loss of profits. Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 175 U. S. 609, reversing (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491. 2. When Abandonment Necessary. — In case of total loss of insurance on profits no abandon- ment is necessary. Canada Sugar-Refining Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 82 Fed. Rep. 757, 175 U. S. 609. An actual partial loss of profits cannot be made total by abandonment. Insurance Co. of North America v. Canada. Sugar-Refining Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 491, reversed, on an- swer point »7$ V, S. 699. 5. Canton Ins. Office v. Woodside, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 301. Articles Separately Valued. — There may be a loss of a portion of goods of the same species, •shipped in separate packages and separately valued. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Western Assur. Co., 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 379. Effect of Agreement. — The parties may modify the terms of their contract of insurance by agreeing that an entire loss or destruction of part of the goods, of the some species, shipped and insured in bulk, shall be treated as a total loss, and be recoverable for as a total loss. Mowat v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 47. 31. 1. Must Be Absolute and Explicit. — In- surance Co. of North America v. Johnson, 70 Fed. Rep. 794, 37 U. S. App. 413. Statement of Interest Conveyed. — It is not necessary that an abandonment should state with mathematical exactness the interest con- veyed. Insurance Co. of North America v. Johnson, 70 Fed. Rep. 794, 37 TJ. S. App. 413. Waiver of Objection to Form of Abandonment. — Insurance Co. of North America v. Johnson, 70 Fed. Rep. 794, 37 U. S. App. 413. 32. 2. Excusable Delay. — The act of the insurer in ignoring an informal tender of aban- donment and disclaiming any liability whatever sufficiently excuses any more formal tender at the time. De Farconnet v. Western Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 405. 3. Further Authorities. — Harvey v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co., 120 Mich. 601. 35. 2. When Evidence Sufficient. — Where the insurer refuses to accept abandonment, and there is no ambiguity in its attitude, and what is done is no more than it has a right to do under the sue and labor clause of the policy without incurring liability, such acts cannot be construed as an acceptance of abandonment. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Reliance Marine Ins. Co., j 79 U. S. 1, affirming (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 296. See also Soelberg v. Western Assur. Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 23, 55 C. C. A. 601. Repairing. — Where the underwriters take possession of a ship, incompletely repair her, and then allow her to be sold for the cost of those repairs, there is a sufficient acceptance of an abandonment. If these acts are not an ac- ceptance they constitute a conversion of the ship, and this latter precludes a claim of non- acceptance. McLeod v. Insurance Co. of North America, 34 Nova Scotia 88. 36. 4. The Red Sea, (1896) P. 20; Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 453, 49 C. C. a. 106 quoting 1 Am, a!*d Ins, En?y?i er Mw Vol. I. ABANDONMENT AND TOTAL LOSS. 37-40 37. See note i. 38. See notes i, 2. 39. See note I. 40. b. Apportionment of Freight. — See note i. 37. 1. Bights to Which Insurer Succeeds — Compensation from Tortfeasor. — Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 452, 49 C. C. A. 106, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 36. Rights of Action. — The Livingstone, 122 Fed. Rep. 278. 39. 1. Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 452, 49 C. C. A. 106, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. or Law (2d ed.) 36. Coinsurer's Liability. — Gilchrist v. Chicago Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 104 Fed. Rep. 566. 2. The Red Sea, (1896) P. 20; Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 452, 49 C. C. A. 106, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, (2d. ed.) 36 ; Gilchrist v. Chicago Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 104 Fed. Rep. 566. 39. 1. Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., no Fed. Rep. 452, 49 C. C. A. 106. Contra. — Harvey v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co., 120 Mich. 601. 40. 1. English Rule as to Freight. — See The Red Sea, (1896) P. 26. ABATEMENT OF LEGACIES. By P. B. McKenzie. 42. I. Definition. — See note i. II. Residuary Legacies — General Rule. — See note 2. 43. Annuity Takes Precedence, — See note I. 45. III. General Legacies — 1. The General Rule. — See note 3. 46. 2. Circumstances Influencing Application of Doctrine — a. Bounty. - See notes 1, 2. 48. [Bequest to Brother. — See note Ifl.J b. Consideration. — See note 7. 50. [Relinquishment of Interest in Land a Sufficient Consideration. — See note I a. J 51. Rights Must Subsist at Time of Testator's Death. — See note 2. C. INTENT — Intent to Create Priority Must Be Clear. — See note 6. 42. 1. See Golder v. Chandler, 87 Me. 63 ; Martin, Petitioner, 25 «R. I. 1. Where the testatrix had only a power of ap- pointment over a fund it will not be abated to supply a deficiency of her estate to pay lega- cies. White v. Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, 171 Mass. 84. 2. No Abatement of General and Specific Lega- cies in Favor of Residuary Legacies — England. — In re Bawden, (1894) 1 Ch. 693. Iowa. — Newcomb v. Fitch, 98 Iowa 175. Kentucky. — Louisville Presb. Theological Seminary v. Fidelity Trust, etc., Vault Co., 113 Ky. 336. Massachusetts. — Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521. Pennsylvania. — In re Howell, 16 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 89; Barrett's Estate, 22 Ta. Super. Ct. 74. Rhode Island. — Lyon v. Brown University, 20 R. I. 53; Martin, Petitioner, 25 R. I. 1. 43. 1. Priority of Annuities. — Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521, to same effect as In re Tootal, 2 Ch. D. 628, cited in original note. 45. 3. Loring v. Thompson, 184 Mass. 103 ; Matter of Bialostosky, (Surrogate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 716; Matter of Hinman, (Surrogate Ct.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 536 ; Lyons v. Steinhardt, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 628; Matter of Merritt, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 179, affirmed 176 N. Y. 608; Heath v. McLaughlin, 115 N. Car. 398; Nickerson v. Bragg, 21 R. I. 296, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 45- Illustrations. — A bequest was made to a city to provide for keeping up a cemetery lot, and it was held to be a general legacy, and subject to abatement. Ellis v. Aldrich, 70 N. H. 219. But see infra, 51. 2. Consideration Arising After Testator's Death. In Case of a Deficiency of Assets to Pay Debts. — In re Hooven, 15 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 200. Annuity Abates Proportionately with Other Gen- eral Legacies. — Matter of Hinman, (Surrogate Ct.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 536. 46. 1. Where Bequest a Mere Bounty. — Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521; Matter of Hinman, (Surrogate Ct.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 536; Lyons v. Steinhardt, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 628; Matter of Merritt, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 179, affirmed 176 N. Y. 608. 2. Effect of Near Relationship, Dependence, Etc. — Matter of Bialostosky, (Surrogate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 716; Bixenstein's Estate, 6 Pa. Dist. 19. 48. la. Bequest to Brother. — Matter of Hin- man, (Surrogate Ct.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 536. 7. To Wife in Lieu of Dower. — Ellis v. Aid- rich, 70 N. H. 219; Dunning v. Dunning, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 462; Forepaugh's Estate, 199 Pa. St. 484; Bailey's Estate, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 139. Where the Widow Elects. — Collins v. Cloyd, (Ky. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 735; Baptist Female University v. Borden, 132 N. Car. 476; Latta v. Brown, 96 Tenn. 343. 50. Iff. Henry's Estate, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 415. 51. 2. Consideration Arising After Testator's Death. — A bequest to a cemetery providing for the care of lots will not be abated. Matter of Hinman, (Surrogate Ct.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 536. But see supra, 45. 3. Illustrations. A bequest for the saying of masses will not be abated. Sherman v. Baker, 20 R. I. 613, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) Si- 6. California. — Matter of Ross, 140 Cal. 282. Delaware. — Hoffecker v. Clark, 6 Del. Ch. 125. Illinois. — Rexford v. Bacon, 195 111. 70. Louisiana. — Shaffer's Succession, 50 La. Ann. 601. Maryland. — Chester County Hospital v. Hay- den, 83 Md. 104 ; Sykes v. Van Bibber, 88 Md. 98. Montana. — In re Phillip, 18 Mont. 311. New York. — Matter of Bialostosky, (Surro- gate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 716; Morse v. Til- den, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 132, modifying (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 560 ; Matter of Brown, (Surrogate Ct.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 444. Pennsylvania.' — In re Howell, 16 Montg. Co Rep. (Pa.) 89. Rhode Island. — Martin, Petitioner, 25 R. I. 1. Canada. — Re Dunn, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 560. Presumption of Intended Equality. — Porter v. Vol. I. ABATEMENT OF LEGACIES. 53 5» 53. 53. 54. 55. 56. note 3. 57. 58. 59. Burden of Proof. — See note I . Use of Certain Terms. — See note 2. TeBtator Supposing There Will Be Sufficiency. — See notes 3, 4. 3. Annuities See note 4. IV. Specific — Annuity Charged on Personalty. — See note 3. and Demonstrative Legacies — X. m General. — See See note 1. See note I. See note 1. 2. Specific Bequest of All the Testator's Personal Property. — See note 2. 3. Fund Given in Fractional Parts. — See note 3. Howe, 173 Mass. 521, to same effect as Rich- ardson v. Hall, 124 Mass. 228, Gited in original note. 52. 1. Burden of Proof upon Party Seeking Preference. — Re Waddell, 29 Nova Scotia 19. 2. Use of the Word " Imprimis " and the Like. — Lindsay v. Waldbrook, 24 Ont. App. 604. 53. 3. Shaffer's Succession, 50 La. Ann. 601 ; Chester County Hospital v. Hayden, 83 Md. 104. 4. Where Testator Constitutes Two Residues. — A bequest of a specific amount was made to a legatee payable on his attaining a certain age, with proviso that if he died before attaining that age the legacy was to be divided among five others — four to receive specific amounts, the fifth the residue. A subsequent clause of the will gave one-half of the residue of the es- tate to the same legatee on the same terms. The legatee died without issue before attaining the specified age, and it was held that the spe- cific sums bequeathed the four out of the first fund should be paid in full and prior to any payment to the fifth. Sykes v. Van Bibber, 88 Md. 98. 54. 3. Annuity Charged on Personalty a Gen- eral Legacy. — In re Baum, 15 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 58. 55. 4. But see In re Metcalf, (1903) 2 Ch. 424. 66. 3. General Legacies Abate Before Specific. — Angus v. Noble, 73 Conn. 56; Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521 ; Nowack v. Berger, 133 Mo. 24, 54 A™. St. Rep. 663 ; Moore's Estate, 6 Pa. Dist. 245 ; Jervis v. Ferris, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 142. General Legacies Abate Before Demonstrative Legacies. — Baptist Female University v. Bor- den, 132 N. Car. 476. Demonstrative Legacies Abate Before Specific Legacies. — Dunn v. Renick, 40 W. Va. 349. 57. 1. In re Maddock, (19P2) 2 Ch. 22a, 71 L. J. Ch. 567 ; In re Roberts, (1902) 2 Ch. 834. Specific Devisees and Legatees. — In re Bawden, (1894) 1 Ch. 693, to same effect as Maybury v. Grady, 67 Ala. 147, cited in the original note. " It is a general rule that specific legacies do not abate with or contribute to general legacies. There are exceptions, as where the whole estate is given in specific legacies and then a pecuniary legacy is given, or where an intention that the specific legacies shall abate appears in the will." Heath v. McLaughlin, 115 N- Car. 398. Testatrix took, without adoption, a two-year- old child, cared for him and received the fruits of his labor during minority, lived with him a number of years in a home he had built partly with money loaned by her "and which loan was evidenced by a bond secured by mortgage on the house. She bequeathed the bond and mort- gage to this g«a.s«-adopted son, and certain bank deposits to relatives, and it was held that the bequest to the son did not abate. Matter of Brown, (Surrogate Ct.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 444. Devise in Lieu of Dower. — Dunning v. Dun- ning, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 462. 58. 1. Hibler v. Hibler, 104 Mich. 274; Coapland v. Lake, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 39; Dunford v. Jackson, (Va. 1895) 22 S. E. Rep. 853. 59. 1. Matter of Warner, (Surrogate Ct.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 432. 3. White v. Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, 171 Mass. 84. 3, Shaffer's Succession, so La. Ann. 601 ; M. E. Church v. Hebard, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 548 ; Barrett's Estate, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 74. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES. By O. D. Estee. 64. II. Abatement by Process of Law— 1. Civil Proceedings — *. Suit IN Equity — (i) When Equity Will Interfere. — See note 5. 65. See note 1. 66. See note 2. 68. Must Be Substantial Injury. — See note I. 69. Injunction — When Granted. — See notes 2, 3. upon his ice field and so destroying the ice. It was held that the injunction should be granted. American Ice Co. v. Catskill Cement 64. 6. Equitable Belief. — United States. — Robinson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 753. Alabama. — Hundley v. Harrison, 123 Ala. 292. Louisiana. — Board of Aldermen v. Norman, Si La. Ann. 736, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 65 ; State v. King, 105 La. 731- Maryland. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 ' Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441. Michigan. — Mt. Clemens v. Mt. Clemens Sanitarium Co., 127 Mich. 115. Missouri. — Zugg v. Arnold, 75 Mo. App. 68. New Jersey. — Seastream v. New Jersey Ex- hibition Co., (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 53 2 - New York. — Rosenheimer v. Standard Gas Light Co., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 482. Tennessee. — Weakley v. Page, 102 Tenn. 178. Texas. — Hockaday v. Wortham, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 419. Wisconsin. — Rude v. St. Marie, 121 Wis. 634. Statutory Remedy at Law and Remedy in Equity Concurrent. — Hill v. McBurney Oil, etc., Co., 112 Ga. 788. Pesthouse. — Equity will enjoin the erection of a pesthouse near a public school. Youngs- town Tp. v. Youngstown, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 518. 65. 1. Private Nuisances. — Peek v. Roe, no Mich. 52. Privy. — Radican v. Buckley, 138 Ind. 582; Finkelstein v. Huner, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 424. Noise. — Where a glass factory was erected beside a hotel, rendering its rooms untenantable on account of the deafening noise and the smoke, it was held that this constituted a con- tinuing private nuisance which equity would abate. Leeds v. Bohemian Art Glass Works, 63 N. J. Eq. 619. In Feeney v. Bartoldo, (N. J. 1895) 30 Atl. Rep. noi, an injunction was granted to restrain the playing of a piano in a saloon after nine p. M., as the music and singing in the late hours of the night disturbed the sleep of the occupants of an adjoining dwelling. Sewerage. — Waycross v. Houk, 113 Ga. 963; Winchell v. Waukesha, no Wis. 10 1, 84 Am. St. Rep. 902. Smoke, Steam, Cinders, Etc. — McMarran v. Fitzgerald, 106 Mich. 649; McClung v. North Bend Coal, etc., Co., 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 243, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. 239 ; Sullivan v. Jones, etc., Steel Co., 208 Pa. St. 540 ; Faulkenbury v. Wells, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 621. The plaintiff owned an ice field and brought an action to restrain the defendants, who oper- ated a cement factory near by, from so conduct- ing their business as to cast cinders and soot Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 221. Dam. — Masonic Temple Assoc, v. Banks, 94 Va. 695. Oyster Bed. — In Powell v. Wilson, 85 Md. 347, equity took jurisdiction of a suit to compel the defendant to remove his oyster bed from the plaintiff's land. Cemetery. — In the case of Lowe v. Prospect Hill Cemetery Assoc, 58 Neb. 94, it was held that equity would enjoin the location of a cemetery in close proximity to private dwellings where it would contaminate the water in the wells. Compare Elliott v. Ferguson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 56. Obstruction of Private Way, — Reese v. Wright, 98 Md. 272. Hospital. — Deaconess Home, etc., v. Bontjes, 207 111. 553- 66. 2. Establishment of Bight at Law. — Deaconess Home, etc., v. Bontjes, 104 111. App. 484 ; McWethy v. Aurora Electric Light, etc., Co., 202 111. 218; Flood v. Consumers Co., 105 111. App. 559 ; Sterling v. Littlefield, 97 Me. 479 ; Read v. Edna Cotton Mills, 136 N. Car. 342 ; Shaw v. Queen City Forging Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 107, 7 Ohio N. P. 234. 6§. 1. Must Be Substantial Injury — Massa- chusetts. — Downing v. Elliott, 182 Mass. 28. Missouri. — Tanner v. Wallbrunn, 77 Mo. App. 262. New Jersey. — H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v. West Jersey R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 607. New York. — Farrell v. New York Steam Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 726 ; Smith v. Ingersoll-Sergeant Rock Drill Co., (C. PI. Gen. T.) 12 Misc. (N. Y.) 5. Ohio. — Shaw v. Queen City Forging Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 107, 7 Ohio N. P. 254. Oklahoma. — West v. Ponca City Milling Co., 14 Okla. 646. Pennsylvania. — Miller v. Schindle, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 341; Scott v. Houpt, 8'Kulp (Pa.) 42. Wisconsin. — Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403. 69. 3. Shroyer v. Campbell, 31 Ind. App. 83; State v. King, 105 La. 731. 3. Legal Remedy Must Be Inadequate — District of Columbia. — ■ Johnson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 491. Illinois. — Nelson v. Milligan, 151 111. 462; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gardner, 66 111. App. 44. Maine. — Tracy u. Le Blanc, 89 Me. 304. Nebraska. — Lowe v. Prospect Hill Cemetery Assoc, 58 Neb. 94. Vol. I. ABA TEMENT OF NUISANCES. 70-71 70. See notes I, 2, 3. 71. See note 1. (2) Who May Maintain a Bill. — See notes 3, 4. North Carolina. — Reyburn v. Sawyer, 13s N. Car. 328, 102 Am. St. Rep. 555. Ohio. — Cline v. Kirkbride, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 517, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 527. Pennsylvania. — O'Neil v. McKeesport, 201 Pa. St. 386. Wisconsin. — Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403. In State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21, it was held that the mere fact that the state could prosecute the defendant at law and recover fines for the maintenance of a public nuisance did not deprive equity of power to abate the nuisance. An Occupation of Land by Gypsies and Other Persons who cause a nuisance to the neighbor- hood has been held sufficient to cause an injunc- tion to be granted restraining the owner of the land from allowing it to be so occupied. Atty.- Gen. v. Stone, 60 J. P. 168. Foul Odors. — In Lefrois u. Monroe County, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 421, it was held that equity would enjoin the defendant from fertilizing a farm by using the sewage of its almshouse, as the sewage polluted the air and also the waters of a stream that the plaintiff used. Gambling House. — In State v. Patterson, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 465, it was held that equity would not restrain the running of a gambling house, even though it was a public nuisance, because there was an adequate remedy at law. 70. 1. England. — Bartlett v. Marshall, 44 W. R. 251, 60 J. P. 104. Alabama. — Dennis -v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 137 Ala. 649, 97 Am. St. Rep. 69. Georgia. — Hill v. McBurney Oil, etc., Co., 112 Ga. 788. Kansas. — Douglass v. Leavenworth, 6 Kan. App. 96. Kentucky. — Palestine Bldg. Assoc, v. Minor, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 695. Maine. — Sterling v. Littlefield, 97 Me. 479. Maryland. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441 ; Reese v. Wright, 98 Md. 272. Missouri. — Scheurich v. Southwest Missouri Light Co., (Mo. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1003. New York. — Friedman v. Columbia Machine Works, etc., 99 N. Y. App. Div. 504 ; Warren v. Parkhurst, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 466. North Carolina. — See Read v. Edna Cotton Mills, 136 N. Car. 342. Pennsylvania. — Sullivan v. Jones, etc., Steel Co., 208 Pa. St. 540. South Carolina. — Threatt v. Brewer Min. Co., 49 S. Car. 95. Tennessee. — Pierce v. Gibson County, 107 Tenn. 224, 89 Am. St. Rep. 946. In England an injunction has been granted restraining horse races on Sunday where the noise and disturbance continually interfered with the peace and quiet of residents and wor- shipers in the neighborhood. Dewar v. City, etc., Racecourse Co., (1899) 1 Ir. 345. Frequent Recurrence of Injury as Ground for Equity Jurisdiction. — Ecton v. Lexington, etc., R. Co., (Ky. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 523. 2. Quantum of Damage. — Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403. Actual Structural Damages to property are not essential to the issuance of an injunction where it is shown that, as a result of the nuisance, the property is frequently rendered almost uninhabitable, and that the comfort and health of the occupants are at all times materi- ally interfered with. Hopkin v. Hamilton Electric Light, etc., Co., 2 Ont. L. Rep. 240, affirmed 4 Ont. L. Rep. 258. Actual Injury or Danger to Health need not be shown as a prerequisite to the issuance of an injunction to restrain the continuance of a nui- sance causing serious annoyance to persons in the neighborhood. Atty.-Gen. v. Keymer Brick, etc., Co., 67 J. P. 434. 3. Balancing Conveniences, — Riedeman v. Mt. Morris Electric Light Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 23 ; Madison v. Duckstown Sulphur, etc., Co., (Tenn. 1904) S3 S. W. Rep. 658. 71. 1. Shaw v. Queen City Forging Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 107, 7 Ohio N. P. 254. 3. Private Nuisance. — Waycross v. Houk, 113 Ga. 963. 4. Public Nuisance — California. — Siskiyou Lumber, etc., Co. v. Rostel, 121 Cal. 511. District of Columbia. — Dewey Hotel Co. v. U. S. Electric Lighting Co., 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 356. Georgia. — ■ Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 118 Ga. 737; Coker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 51 S. E. Rep. 481. Illinois. — Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 181 111. 605; Crane Co. v. Stam- mers, 83 111. App. 329 ; Kuhn v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., in 111. App. 323. Indiana. — State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21. Iowa. — ■ Millhiser v. Willard, 96 Iowa 327. Kansas. — Douglass v. Leavenworth, 6 Kan. App. 96. Kentucky. — Beckham v. Brown, (Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 684. Michigan. — Water Com'rs v. Detroit, 117 Mich. 458. Mississippi. — Pascagoula Boom Co. v. Dixon, 77 Miss. 587, 78 Am. St. Rep. 537. Missouri. — Baker v. McDaniel, 178 Mo. 447. New York. — ■ Dimon v. Shewan, ( Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 72; Old Forge Co. v. Webb, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 316; Black v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 N". Y. App. Div. 468; Jencks v. Miller, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 461. North Carolina. — Reyburn v. Sawyer, 135 N. Car. 328, 102 Am. St. Rep. 555. Pennsylvania. — Christian v. Dunn, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 320. Utah. — Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western R. Co., (Utah 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 849. Washington. — Griffith v. Holman, 23 Wash. 347, 83 Am. St. Rep. 821 ; Smith v. Mitchell, 21 Wash. 536, 75 Am. St. Rep. 858. Wisconsin. — State v. Milwaukee, 102 Wis. 509- Canada. — Adami v. Montreal, 25 Quebec Super. Ct. 1. ya-re ABA TEMENT OF NUISANCES. Vol. I. 73. See note i. 75. (3) Delay and Acquiescence. — See notes 1, 2, 3. 76. (4) Decree Must Not Be Too Broad. — See note 2. In England the attorney-general, or a person suffering particular damage, may maintain a bill for an injunction restraining the continuance of the nuisance. Atty.-Gen. v. Heatley, (1897) 1 Ch. 560, 76 L. T, N. S. 174; Tottenham Urban Dist. Council v. Williamson, (1896) 2 Q- B. 353, 75 L. T. N. S. 238; Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey, 36 Ch. D. 393. Obstruction of Vested Bight. — Where a public nuisance results in the obstruction of a vested right, the owner may maintain a bill to abate it. Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403. Loud Noises and Offensive Odors. — Fisher v. Zumwalt, 128 Cal. 493 ; Hill v. McBurney Oil, etc., Co., 112 Ga. 788; Percival v. Yousling, 120 Iowa 451. Ereotion of Dam. — A dam was erected across a stream and this produced an outbreak of malaria in the family of the complainant. This was held to be such a special injury as would enable him to maintain a bill to have the nui- sance abated. Richards v. Daugherty, 133 Ala. 569. Where a Stagnant Fool of Water Canses Sickness in a man's family it is a special injury which will enable him to maintain an action to have it abated. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Parish, 117 Ga. 893. Obstructions on Highways — Alabama. — Whaley v. Wilson, 112 Ala. 627. Indiana. — ■ Martin v. Marks, 154 Ind. 549 ; O'Brien v. Central Iron, etc., Co., 158 Ind. 218, 92 Am. St. Rep. 305. Maryland. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441. New Jersey. — Cronin v. Bloemecke, 58 N. J. Eq. 313- New York. — Eldert v. Long Tsland Electric R. Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 451 ; Finegan v. Eckerson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 574; Van Siclen v. New York, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 403. Tennessee. — Rich! v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 105 Tenn. 651. Beer Garden. — Kissell v. Lewis, 156 Ind. 233. House of 111 Fame. — Weakley v. Page, 102 Tenn. 178; Blagen v. Smith, 34 Oregon 394; Ingersoll v. Rousseau, 35 Wash. 92. Concert Saloon. — Equity will enjoin the opera- tion of a concert saloon conducted in a noisy and offensive manner, at the suit of parties affected thereby. Koehl u. Schoenhausen, 47 La. Ann. 13 16. Sunday Ball Game. — In Gilbough v. West Side Amusement Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 27, it was held that the noise attendant upon a Sunday baseball game was a public nuisance and inflicted such special injury upon one living near by as to en- able him to maintain an action, for its abate- ment. 73. 1. Nuisances Purely Public — England. — Atty.-Gen. v. Heatley, (1897) 1 Ch. 560. United States. ■ — U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. Rep. 724 ; Lownsdale v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 117 Fed. Rep. 983. California. — People v. Truckee Lumber Co., u6 Cal. 397, 58 Am. St. Rep. 183; Fisher v. Zumwalt, 128 Cal. 493- _ . District of Columbia. — See Johnson v. Bal- timore, etc., R. Co., 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 491- Georgia. — Cannon v. Merry, 116 Ga. 291. Indiana. — State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21 ; Martin v. Marks, 154 I nd - 549- Kansas. — See State v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Kan. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 212. Kentucky. — Dulaney v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 100 Ky. 628. New Jersey. — H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v. West Jersey R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 607. New York. — Gallagher v. Keating, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 81. Washington. — Griffith v. Holman, 23 Wash. 347, 83 Am. St. Rep. 821. West Virginia. — Wees v. Coal, etc., R. Co., 54 W. Va. 421. Wisconsin. — State v. Milwaukee, 102 Wis. 509- Suit Brought by Municipal Corporation. — San Francicso v. Buckman, 1 1 1 Cal. 25 ; Coast Co. v. Spring Lake, 56 N. J. Eq. 615, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 73, 74; Hempstead v. Ball Electric Light Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 48 ; Belton v. Central Hotel Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 297; Belton v. Baylor Female College, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 680. Suit Not Maintainable by Individual in Absence of Special Injury — California. — Spring Valley Water Works v. Fifield, 136 Cal. 14. Illinois. — Guttery v. Glenn, 201 111. 275. Kansas. — Jones v. Chanute, 63 Kan. 243. Massachusetts. — Winthrop v. New England Chocolate Co., 180 Mass. 464. Minnesota. — Gundlach v. Hamm, 62 Minn. 42. Nebraska. — Hill v. Pierson, 45 Neb. 503. New Jersey. — Humphreys v. Eastlack, 63 N. J. Eq. 136. Ohio. — Mondle v. Toledo Plow Co., 9 Ohio Dec. 281, 6 Ohio N. P. 294. Pennsylvania. — Rhymer v. Fretz, 206 Pa. St. 230, 98 Am. St. Rep. 777. Utah. — Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western R. Co., (Utah 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 849. 75. 1. Cloverdale v. Smith, 128 Cal. 230; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441 ; Faullaenbury v. Wells, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 621. 2. Delay Accompanied with Acquiescence. — Louisville, etc., JR. Co. v. Daugherty, (Ky. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 5. 3. Expensive Erections. — Madison v. Ducks- town Sulphur, etc., Co., (Tenn. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 658. 76. 2. Decree and Action Thereunder. — Cronin v. Bloemecke, 58 N. J. Eq. 313; Schaub v. Perkinson Bros. Constr. Co., (Mo. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 1094; Pierce v. Gibson County, 107 Tenn. 224, 89 Am. St. Rep. 946 ; McGregor v. Camden, 47 W. Va. 193. Injunction Against Manner of Carrying on Business. — Miller v. Edison Electric Illumi- nating Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Vol. I. ABA TEMENT OF NUISANCES. 76-06 76. 2. Criminal Proceedings — a. Generally. — See note 3. 78. b. Extent of Abatement. — See note 3. 79. III. Abatement Without Process of Law — 1. By Private Individuals — b. WHO MAY ABATE — A Private Nuisance. — See notes 3, 4. 8©. See note 1. 83. c. Limitations upon Right of Abatement. — See note 1. 85. See note 1. 86. See note 3. 87. 2. By Municipal Corporations — a. Source of Power. — See notes 1, 3. 88. b. Extent of Power. — See note 1, 89. See note 1. 958. See notes 1, 2. 93. c. Method of Abatement. — See notes 2, 3. 94. Notice. — See note 2. 95. See note 1. d. Liability of Municipality. — See notes 2, 3. 96. See note 1. Y.) 664 ; Chamberlain v. Douglas, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 582 ; Shaw v. Queen City Forging Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 107, 7 Ohio N. P. 254. 76. 3. Judgment — What May Embrace. — Lamberton v. Grant, 94 Me. 508, 80 Am. St. Rep. 415; People v. Pelton, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 450. 78. 3. Gambling Paraphernalia may be de- stroyed by the state in order to abate a public nuisance. Woods v. Cottrell, 55 W- Va. 476. 79. 3. Private Nuisance Abatable by Person Aggrieved. — McKeesport Sawmill Co. v. Penn- sylvania Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 184. 4. People v. Severance, 125 Mich. 556; Chilli- cothe v. Bryan, 103 Mo. App. 409 ; Priewe v. Fitzsimons, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 497. 80. 1. Public Nuisance from Which One Sus- tains Special Injury. — People v. Severance, 125 Mich. 556. 83. 1. People v. Severance, 125 Mich. 556. 85. 1. Abatement Must Not Be Excessive. — Chillicothe v. Bryan, 103 Mo. App. 409. 86. 3. Public Peace Must Not Be Disturbed. — 'People v. Severance, 125 Mich. 556. 87. 1. Source of Municipal Power over Nui- sances. — Rund v. Fowler, 142 Ind. 214; Sprigg v. Garrett Park, 89 Md. 406 ; Cartwright v. Cohoes, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 69 ; Lorimier v. Beaudoin, 9 Quebec Super. Ct. 222. 3. When Implied. — Board of Aldermen v. Norman, 51 La. Ann. 736. 88. 1. Extent of Municipal Control. — Red Wing v. Guptil, 72 Minn. 259, 71 Am. St. Rep. 48S. 89.. 1. Board of Aldermen v. Norman, 51 La. Ann. 736. 92. 1. Haigh v. Bell, 41 W. Va. 19, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 90, 91. 2. Nuisances Per Se. — Sprigg v. Garrett Park, 89 Md. 406, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 92. 93. 2. Summary Abatement. — Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609; Red Wing v. Guptil, 72 Minn. 259, 71 Am. St. Rep. 485 ; Cartwright v. Cohoes, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 69 ; Davis v. Davis, 40 W. Va. 464. 3. Dzik v. Bigelow, 27 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 360; Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983. Destruction of Buildings. — In Nazworthy v. Sullivan, 55 111. App. 48, it was held that the city had authority to tear down an old building that was frequented by tramps. Cesspool. — In Philadelphia v. Goudey, 36 W. N. C. (Pa.) 246, a cesspool that was situated on private premises became a nuisance, and it was held that the city had authority to close it. 94. 2. Notice. — Western, etc., R. Co. v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 537; Shannon v. Omaha, (Neb. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 298 ; Eckhardt v. Buffalo, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 1. Statutory Form of Notice Must Be Strictly Com- plied with. — St. Louis v. Flynn, 128 Mo. 413. 95. 1. Order for Removal. — Dzik v. Bige- low, 27 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 360; Davis v. Davis, 40 W. Va. 464. On Whom Order Served. — A person who col- lects the rents of property may be served with the notice requiring an abatement of a nuisance on the premises. Broadbent v. Shepherd, (1901) 2 K. B. 274, 83 L. T. N. S. 504, 84 L. T. N. S. 844- 3. Neglect in Matter of Nuisances. — Muncie ■a. Hey, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 250. 3. Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609 ; Corey v. Edgewood, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 216. Municipal Corporation Not Liable. — Where the health officers of a municipal corporation destroyed private property without cause under the mistaken impression that it was infected with a contagious disease, the municipal cor- poration is not liable, as it is merely perform- ing a governmental duty, but the owner of the property can maintain a suit for damages against the health officers. Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983. See also Prichard v. Morganton, 126 N. Car. 908, 78 Am. St. Rep. 679. 96. 1. Power to Be Reasonably Exercised. — Eckhardt v. Buffalo, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 1. Water collected in the plaintiff's cellar, con- stituting a. nuisance, and to abate it, the city filled the cellar with earth. But it was held that the city had no right to do this if it could have abated the nuisance by draining the cellar. Waggoner v. South Gorin, 88 Mo. App. 25. ABBREVIATIONS. 97. II. In Genebal. — See note 2. 98. III. Judicial Notice. — See note 3. 99. Time. — See note 2. IV. Paeol Evidence. — See note 3. IOO. See note 9. Usage. — See note 2. 97. 2. " & " for " And." — Stewart v. State, 137 Ala. 40, citing i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 97. " L. S." for " Seal." — McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 433, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681. 98. 3. Matter of Lakemeyer, 135 Cal. 28, 87 Am. St. Rep. 96, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 98 ; McChesney v, Chi- cago, 173 111. 75- "Acct."for "Account." — The court will take judicial notice that the abbreviation " acct." stands for "account." Heaton v. Ainley, 108 Iowa 112, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 97 [98]. 99. 2. "Nov. 22, /97," for "November 22, 1897."— Matter of Lakemeyer, 135 Cal. 28, 87 Am. St. Rep. 96, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 99- 3. Admissibility of Parol Evidence. — Cameron v. Fellows, 109 Iowa 534, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 99 ; Penn Tobacco Co. v. Leman, 109 Ga. 428 ; McChesney v. Chicago, 173 111. 75, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 99- IOO. 9. Cameron v. Fellows, 109 Iowa 534. 2. Cameron v. Fellows,, 109 Iowa 534. Sufficient Descriptions. — " Sec. 23, 38, 14,'' for section 23, township 38, range 14. Mc- Chesney v. Chicago, 173 111. 75, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 100. ABDUCTION. By H. D. Patton. 163. I. Definition. — See note i. II. Abduction or Wife — 1. Rights of Husband — General Role. See note 2. 164. 2. Gist of the Action. — See note i. •3. When Action Does Not Lie. — See note 2. 165. See notes i, 2. 163. 1. Definition. — Baumgartner v. Ei- genbrot, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 601, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 163. In Humphrey v. Pope, 122 Cal. 253, the court said : " The word ' abduct ' is from the Latin abduco, to lead away. Abduction is the taking away a wife, child, or ward by fraud and per- suasion or open violence. Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 606; State v. George, 93- N. Car. 570. In private or civil law it is the act of taking away a man's wife by violence or per- suasion. 3 Steph. Com. 536." "Abduction" and "Taking Away" Equivalent Expressions. — Humphrey v. Pope, 122 Cal. 253. 2. As to actions for the alienation of the wife's affections, see the title ■ Husband and Wife. 862 et seq. Motive Not Material. — Intentional persuasion of the wife to leave her husband creates a cause of action in favor of the husband regardless of the motive underlying such persuasion. Hart- pence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. 623. 104. 1. Loss of Wife's Society Gist of Action. — See the title Husband and Wife, 862. 6. 2. Notice by Husband Not to Harbor Wife. — Compare Powell v. Benthall, 136 N. Car. 145. A Sister and Brother-in-law who harbor the wife are not liable in damages where they have not been instrumental in bringing about the separation and have not counseled its continu- ance. Their relationship to the wife is relevant and material on the question of motive; and the burden is not upon the defendants to show justification, but upon the plaintiff to show enticement or persuasion. Powell v. Benthall, 136 N. Car. 145. 165. 1, See Yowell v. Vaughn, 85 Mo. App. 206. 2. Malice Must Be Proved. — Oakman v. Belden, 94 Me. 280, 80 Am. St. Rep. 3g6. Vol. I. ABDUCTION. 165-173 165. 4. Remedy by Habeas Corpus. — See note 3. 166. III. Abduction of Husband — 1. Remedies of Wife — Common-law Rule. — See note 1. 2. Modern Decisions. — See note 2. 167. 3. Gist of the Action. — See note 1. 4. When Action Does Not Lie. — See note 2. 5. Wife's Right to Habeas Corpus. — See note 3. IV. Abduction of Child — 1. Rights of Parents See note 4. 171. V. Measure of Damages — 1. In Action by Husband 173. 2. In Action by Wife. — See note 1. 1 73. VI. Abduction as a Crime — 2. Under the Statutes — a. In General. — See note 3. General Rule. See note 1. 165. 8. Habeas Corpus. — See the title Habeas Corpus, 181. 3. 166. 1. See Humphrey v. Pope, 122 Cal. 253 ; Hodge v. Wetzler, 69 N. J. L. 490 ; Smith v. Smith, 98 Tenn. 101, 60 Am. St. Rep. 838. 2. California. — Humphrey v. Pope, 122 Cal. 253, holding that the wife has a right of action regardless of whether the husband was forcibly abducted or merely enticed away from her ; and the fact that the damages recovered would be community property does not affect the right of action. Illinois. — Betser v. Betser, 87 111. App. 399, affirmed 186 111. 537, 78 Am. St. Rep. 303. Kansas. — Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410. Kentucky. — ■ Deitzman v. Mullin, 108 Ky. 610, 94 Am. St. Rep. 390. Minnesota. — Lockwood v. Lockwood, 67 Minn. 476. Missouri. — Nichols v. Nichols, 134 Mo. 187, 147 Mo. 387. Nebraska. — Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson, 43 Neb. 269, 47 Am. St. Rep. 759. New York. — Romaine v. Decker, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 20 ; Wilson v. Coulter, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 85 ; Kuhn v. Hemmann, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 108; Van Olinda v. Hall, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 452. Pennsylvania. — Gernerd v. Gernerd, 18s Pa. St. 233, 64 Am. St. Rep. 646, citing 1 Am. and Eng. En cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 166. And see the title Husband and Wife, 864 et seq. No Right of Action in New Jersey. — Hodge v. Wetzler, 69 N. J. L. 490. In Tennessee it seems that the wife is not entitled to maintain such an action except in a case where the cause of action arises after she has been abandoned by her husband. Smith v. Smith, 98 Tenn. 101, 60 Am. St. Rep. 838. In Wisconsin it is held that the wife has no right of action either at common law or by stat- ute. Lonstorf v. Lonstorf, 118 Wis. 159, re- affirming Duffies v. Duffies, 76 Wis. 374, 20 Am. St. Rep. 79, cited in the original note. 167. 1. Deitzman v. Mullin, 108 Ky. 610, 94 Am. St. Rep. 390 ; Neville v. Gile, 174 Mass. 305; Buchanan v. Foster, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 542; Kuhn v. Hemmann, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 108. 2. Where the Husband Had No Affection for his wife at the \\xa% of the acts alleged {o have induced him to abandon her, it was held that she could not recover. Servis v. Servis, 172 N. Y. 438, reversing 64 N. Y. App. Div. 612. The Attempt to Entice Must Have Been Success- ful. — Van Olinda v. Hall, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 452- It Is a Question of Fact for the Jury to decide whether the allowance of sexual intercourse by the defendant to the plaintiff's husband was an enticement which caused him to abandon the plaintiff. The court said : " The carnal inter- course may be — nay, generally is, — the great- est of enticements and allurements." Romaine v. Decker, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 20. 3. Right of Wife to Writ of Habeas Corpus. — See the title Habeas Corpus, 181 et seq. 4. Right of Father in Case of Abduction of Child. — Wheeler v. Price, 21 R. I. 99. 171. 1. Damages Recoverable. — See the title Husband and Wife, 863. Punitive Damages. — See Hartpence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. 623. Excessive Damages. — See Hartpence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. 623. 172. 1. Principle upon Which Damages Esti- mated. — Exemplary damages may be allowed where malice and oppression are involved ; and damages may be recovered for mental anguish, mortification, and injury to the feelings. Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410. See generally the title Husband and Wife, 866, and the following cases : Lockwood v. Lockwood, 67 Minn. 476 ; Nichols v. Nichols, 147 Mo. 387; Love v. Love, 98 Mo. App. 562; Wilson v. Coulter, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 85. Excessive Damages. — In Van Olinda v. Hall, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 452, a verdict for two thou- sand dollars was held excessive, it appearing that the relations between the husband and wife were not cordial and that the husband did not provide for his family, and the evidence of en- ticement being very unsatisfactory. 173. 3. Kentucky — " Woman " Includes Girl of Twelve. — The Kentucky statute uses the word " woman " in the generic sense, and ap- plies as well to a child of twelve years as to a woman of mature years. Couch v. Com., (Ky. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 29. England, — To support an indictment under the statute 25 Vict, c. 100, § 56, it is not neces- sary to prove that the fraud of the prisoner was practised upon the child itself. Reg. v, Bellis, ?? Cox subs. 6. Hughes v. Pump House Hotel Co., (1902) 2 K. B. 190, distinguishing Mercantile Bank v. Evans, (1899) 2 Q. B. 613. A Contingent Claim Does Not Become Absolute within the meaning of the Decedents' Act until it becomes a claim proper to be presented to the County Court for final adjudication as a claim against the estate. Hazlett v. Blakely, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 808. 2©§. 1. Kratz v. Kratz, 189 111. 276; Un- derwood v. Cave, 176 Mo. 1 ; Fenton v. Fenton, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 479; Thompson's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 343. In. In a Policy of Accident Insurance provid- ing that the policy does not cover injuries from poison or anything accidentally or other- wise absorbed or inhaled, the word absorbed manifestly has reference only to the process of absorption by sucking up or imbibing through the pores of the body, and does not apply to death by asphyxiation. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Waterman, 161 111. 632. 209. 2. Scott v. Black, 96 Mo. App. 472. Embezzlement — Abstracting. — See U. S. v . Youtsey, gi Fed. Rep. 867; State v. Breese, 131 Fed. Rep. 915. ABSTRACT OF TITLE. By G. W. Walsh. 911. I. Definition. — See note i. [Abstract Books Not Subject to Taxation. — See note la.] [Abstract Books Subject to Execution. — See note id.] III. Contents and Sufficiency — 1. In General — Patents, Conveyances, Incumbrances, Etc. — See note 4- a 13. 3. Period for Which Title Shown — a. English note 4. Summary of Grants, Rule. — See notes 6, 7 313. IV. Who Must Furnish the Abstract — 1. In England. — See 2. In the United States. — See note i . Caveat Emptor. — See note 2. 214. V. Time of Delivering the Abstract — Rule at Law. — See note i. VI. Showing the Title by the Abstract — 1. General Principles. — See note 7. 215. 2. Vendee's Objections. — See note 1. To Be Made in Reasonable Time. — See note 2. 211. 1. Hollifield v. Landrum, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 187, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 211. " An abstract is defined to be ' that which comprises or concentrates in itself the essen- tial qualities of a larger thing or of several things ; an abridgment, compendium, epitome, or synopsis ' " Hess v. Draffen, 99 Mo. App. 580. la. Abstract Books Not Subject to Taxation. — In Loomis v. Jackson, 130 Mich. 594, follow- ing Perry v. Big Rapids, 67 Mich. 146, 11 Am. St. Rep. 570, it was held that abstract books used in furnishing abstracts of title to land were not subject to taxation, though they were by statute made subject to levy under execu- tion. Compare Leon Loan, etc., Co. -v. Equali- zation Board, 86 Iowa 127, 41 Am. St. Rep. 486. \b. Abstract Books Subject to Execution. — Loomis v. Jackson, 130 Mich. 594. This case was decided under Pub. Acts Mich. 1899, p. 308, it having been theretofore held (Dart v. Woodhouse, 40 Mich. 399, 29 Am. Rep. 544) that abstract books referring to land titles, being unpublished manuscript, were not leviable property. 4, Harriman Imp. Co. v. McNutt, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 396, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 211. All Documents Forming Fart of the Title should be abstracted in chief ; the introduction of such documents merely as recitals in other abstracted instruments is insufficient. In re Stamford, etc., Banking Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 287, 81 L. T. N. S. 708. 212. 4. Modern English Rule. — In re Stam- ford, etc., Banking Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 287, 81 L. T. N. S. 708. 6. An Agreement to Take a Free Conveyance does not waive the delivery of an abstract of title. Re Pelly, 80 L. T. N. S. 45. 7. English Rule : Vendor Furnishes Abstract. — In re Stamford, etc., Banking Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 287, 81 L. T. N. S. 708; Re Halifax Commer- cial Banking Co., 79 L. T. N. S. 183. 213. 1. In Illinois the vendor must furnish evidence of his title, which by usage is an ab- stract. Brewer v. Fox, 62 111. App. 609. 2. Purchaser Must Examine for Himself. — Symns v. Cutter, 9 Kan. App. 210. See also Webster Realty Co. v. Thomas, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 916. 214. 1. Delay in Furnishing Abstract Waived by Making Payment under Contract. — McAlpine v- Reicheneker, 56 Kan. 100. 7. Perfect Title. — Where the contract was that the vendor furnish an abstract showing a complete or perfect title, the vendee was held entitled to rescind the sale on the failure of the vendor to furnish such an abstract. Loring v. Oxford, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 415. Good and Marketable Title. — A contract for an abstract showing a perfect title requires that the abstract show a good and marketable title. Gates v. Parmly, 93 Wis. 294. A Defect in an Abstract of Title Which Is Not Insisted on by the purchaser as the reason for refusing the deed is not available as a defense to a suit against him for specific performance where the vendor would have been able to cure the defect and offered to do so. Wold v. New- gard, (Iowa 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 859. 215. 1. Lessenich v. Sellers, 119 Iowa 314, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 215. Vendee Entitled to Verification of Abstract — See Re Halifax Commercial Banking Co., 70 L. T. N. S. 183. 2. Lessenich v. Sellers, 119 Iowa 314. Vol. 1. Abstract of title. 316-331 316. VII. Preparing the Abstract — 2. Searching — b. Public Rec- ords — Duty of Officials. — See notes 2, 3. 317. c Effect of Official Search. — See note 2. 319. 3. Arrangement and Form — b. Abstracting Documents — (7) Miscellaneous. — See note 6. VIII. Abstracts as Evidence — 1. Of Lost Deeds. — See note 7. 330. 2. Miscellaneous — Tax Sales. — See note 1 . [See note \a.~\ IX. Liability of Examiners of Titles — 1. General Rule as to Degree of Care and Skill. — See note 3. 331. 2. When Enforced. — See note 2. Actual Damage Necessary. — See notes 4, 5- 3. Who May Enforce. — See notes 6, 7. 316. 2. Right of Access to Public Records. — — Bell v. Commonwealth Title Ins., etc., Co., 189 U. S. 131. Rule in Other States. — In Georgia it is held that persons wishing to make copies of, or ab- stracts from, the records of land titles for the purpose of compiling abstracts of titles to be used in a private abstract and land title busi- ness are not entitled to do so without obtaining the consent and paying the fees of the custodian of such records. Land Title Warranty, etc., Co. v. Tanner, 99 Ga. 470. The Kansas statute confers on abstractors the right of access to the public records for the purpose of carrying on their, business. Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175. 3. The Mississippi statute requires the boards of county supervisors to make abstracts of land titles for their respective counties, and to keep them up to date at all times, and provides for compensation to be paid by the landowners. Yazoo, etc., Valley R. Co. v. Edwards, 78 Miss. 950. 217. 2. Glawatz v. People's Guaranty Search Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 465. 219. 6. Usage. — In Eberhardt v. Miller, 71 111. App. 215, the court said: "We suppose it is the usual practice in making abstracts of title to manifest such facts by the affidavits of persons cognizant thereof, and while such affi- davits are not legal proof of the matters therein set forth they are usually accepted as sufficient for the purpose." 7. Under the Illinois statute an abstract of title is admissible in evidence only when it is stated on oath that the original deeds or other instruments " are lost or destroyed, or not within the power of the party to produce the same, and that the records thereof are destroyed by fire or otherwise." Walton v. Follansbee, 165 111. 480. 220. 1. Texas — In Trespass to Try Title. — See Robbins v. Ginnochio, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 34; Stokes v. Riley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 703. Under the Texas statute documentary evi- dence of title not contained in the abstract is not admissible. Parker v. Cockrell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 31 S. W. Rep. 221. la. The Nebraska statute (Laws 1887, p. 565) provides that when any abstractor shall have filed his bond an abstract of title certified to and issued by him shall " be received in all courts as prima facie evidence of the existence of the record of deeds, mortgages, and other instruments, conveyances, or liens affecting the real estate mentioned in such abstract, and that such record is as described in said abstract of title." Gate City Abstract Co. v. Post, 55 Neb. 742. 3. Degree of Care and Skill Required. — Brown v. Sims, 22 Ind. App. 317, 72 Am. St. Rep. 308; Young v. Lohr, 118 Iowa 624; Humboldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 969 ; Economy Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. West Jersey Title, etc., Co., 64 N. J. L. 27 ; Byrnes v. Palmer, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; American Trust Invest. Co. v. Nashville Ab- stract Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 877. See also Western Loan, etc., Co. v. Silver Bow Abstract Co., (Mont. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 774; Puckett v. Waco Abstract, etc., Co., 16 Tex. Civ. App. 329. Contract, Not Tort. — Thomas v. Carson, 46 Neb. 765 ; Glawatz v. People's Guaranty Search Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 465. Abstractors Required to Give Bond. — In some states abstractors are required to give bond with sureties, payable to the state, on which they are liable to persons injured by their negligence or want of skill ; but this provision does not con- stitute them public officers. Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175. 221. 2. Measure of Damages. — Keuthan v. St. Louis Trust Co., 101 Mo. App. 1. See also Security Abstract of Title Co. v. Longacre, 56 Neb. 469. 4. Williams v. Hanly, 16 Ind. App. 464. 5. Failure to note a judgment lien does not render the abstractor liable where the purchaser loses the land by the enforcement of an un- recorded mortgage executed before the ren- dition of the judgment, because the loss in such case is not the result of the failure of the abstract to show the judgment lien ; and a claim that the purchaser would not have taken the land if the judgment lien had appeared in the abstract of title is too remote. Denton v. Nashville Title Co., (Tenn. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 799. Statute of Limitations. — Provident Loan Trust Co. v. Wolcott, 5 Kan. App. 473 ; Schade v. Gehner, 133 Mo. 252. 6. Talpey v. Wright, 61 Ark. 275, 54 Am. St. Rep. 206; Schade v. Gehner, 133 Mo. 252; Zweigardt v. Birdseye, 57 Mo. App. 462 ; Western Loan, etc., Co. v. Silver Bow Abstract Co., (Mont. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 774; Economy 233 ABUSE AND MISUSE. Vol. I. 232. ABUSE AND MISUSE. — See note I. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. West Jersey Title, etc., Co., 64 N. J. L. 27. The Kansas statute provides that abstractors shall give a bond, and that they " shall be liable on said bond to any person or persons for whom he or they may compile, make, or furnish abstracts of title, to the amount of damage done to said person or persons by any incompleteness, imperfection, or error " in such abstract. Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175. Abstractor Employed by Agent of Undisclosed Principal is liable for damages to the undis- closed principal. Young v. Lohr, 118 Iowa 624. 221. 7. Brown v. Sims, 22 Ind. App. 317, 72 Am. St. Rep. 308 ; Symns v. Cutter, 9 Kan. App. 210, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 221 ; Denton v. Nashville Title Co., (Tenn. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 799. See also Thomas v. Carson, 46 Neb. 765 ; Glawatz v. People's Guaranty Search Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 465. The statute relating to bonded abstractors (Comp. Stat. Neb. (1897), §§ 65-69) was in- tended to extend the liability of abstractors beyond the limits fixed by the common law, and one who purchases real estate on the faith of a certificate of title furnished to his vendor by a bonded abstractor may maintain an action for damages grounded on the failure of the ab- stractor to make the proper search and true certificate. Gate City Abstract Co. v. Post, 55 Neb. 742. 222. 1. Kline v. Hibbard, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 50. Abase of Discretion. — Stewart v. Stewart, 28 Ind. App. 378 ; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Heath, 29 Ind. App. 406. As ground for a new trial, see Stroup v. Raymond, 183 Pa. St. 279. Abuse a Woman or Child. — Chambers v. State, 46 Neb. 447, following Palin v. State, 38 Neb. 867. The term abusing is equivalent to carnally knowing in a statute punishing the rape of a female child. " The abusing, construed with the carnally knowing, means the imposing upon, deflowering, degrading, ill-treating, debauching, and ruining socially, as well as morally, perhaps, of the virgin of such tender years, who, when yielding willingly, does so in ignorance of the consequences, and of her right and power to resist. * * * To have injured the organs in some way other than by endeavoring to pene- trate with his person, if done with her consent, though it would be abusing her, would not be a crime, because there was no act of carnal knowledge." State v. Monds, 130 N. Car. 697. 22 ABUTTING OWNERS. By G. W. Walsh 335. III. Rights of Abutters — 1. Use and Enjoyment of Property in Respect to the Street — a. Easkment of Access — (i) In General. — See notes 3, 4. 336. The Eight a Species of Private Property. — See notes I, 2. 225. 3. Right of Access Absolute — United States. — Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 219, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225. California. — Brown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal. 274. Indiana. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 827. Kansas. — Highbarger v. Milford, (Kan. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 633. Massachusetts. — Atty.-Gen. v. Collins, (Mass. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 574. Michigan. — Wilkinson v. Dunkley- Williams Co., (Mich. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 170. Mississippi. — Hazlehurst^ v. Mayes, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 33. Missouri. — Corby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. 457; Dries v. St. Joseph, 98 Mo. App. 611; De Geofroy v. Merchants' Bridge Termi- nal R. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524. Ohio. — Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 264, 87 Am. St. Rep. 600, reversing 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 68, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 384- Pennsylvania. — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., Pass. R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. 487. Tennessee. — Hill v. Hoffman, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 929 ; Hamilton County v. Rape, 101 Tenn. 222; Tennessee Brewing Co. v. Union R. Co., (Tenn. 1905) 8s S. W. Rep. 864. Texas. — San Antonio Rapid Transit St. R. Co. v. Limbnrger, 88 Tex. 79. 53 Am. St. Rep. 73°- Wisconsin. — Davis v. Appleton, 109 Wis. 580. But the law does not require cities and towns to construct approaches from the houses or lots of adjacent owners to the traveled part of the way, or to grade and construct the way up to the. lines of the lots. Atty.-Gen. v. Col- lins, (Mass. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 574, following Metcalf v. Boston, 158 Mass. 284- Extent of Right. — The absolute right to in- gress and egress is limited to a street or high- way which is the only means of access to the property. Therefore the owner of abutting property cannot enjoin the obstruction or clos- ing of a street or highway if he has other rea- sonable means of access. Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 283, 87 Am. St. Rep. 600. The extent of the abutting proprietor's rights is that the street, including roadway and side- walk, shall not be closed or obstructed so as to impair ingress to or egress from his lot by him- self and those whom he invites there for trade or other purposes. Hester v. Durham Traction Co., (W. Car. 1905) So S. E. Rep. 711. 4. Question of Ownership of Fee. — Pennsyl- vania Co. v. Chicago, 181 111. 311, quoting 1 Am. and En-g. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davis, 71 111. App. 99; Hazlehurst v. Mayes, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. R-ep. 33 ; De Geofroy v. Merchants' Bridge Terminal R. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524; Egerer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 421 ; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. ■0. Philadelphia, etc., Pass. R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. 487 ; State v. Superior Ct., 26 Wash. 278 ; Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. v. Milwaukee, etc., Electric R. Co., 95 Wis. 561, 60 Am. St. Rep. 137. 226. 1 . Due Compensation — California. — Brown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal. 274. Georgia. — Macon v. Wing, 113 Ga. 90. Illinois. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, 181 111. 311, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225 [226] ; Bloomington v. Wins- low, 71 111. App. 340; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wolf, 95 111. App. 74. Kentucky. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 541. Louisiana. — Walker v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 2036. Maryland. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. S37, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441. Massachusetts. — Putnam v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 182 Mass. 351. Mississippi. — Laurel Imp. Co. v. Rowell, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 543. Missouri. — De Geofroy v. Merchants' Bridge Terminal R. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524; Farrar v. Midland Electric R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 140. New York. — Egerer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 652, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 421. North Dakota. — Donovan v. Allert, i-i N. Dak. 289, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720. Ohio. — Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 264, 87 Am. St. Rep. 600. Texas. — Kalteyer v. Sullivan, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 488. Washington. — State v. Superior Ct., 30 Wash. 219. West Virginia. — Pence v. Bryant, 54 W. Va. 266. 2. Injunction to Enforce Right — United States. — Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 219, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 235 [226]. Illinois. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Chicago, 181 111. 311, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 226. Indiana. — Strunk v. Pritchett, 27 Ind. App. 582 ; Richmond v. Smith, 148 Ind. 294. 23 226-22? ABUTTING OWNERS. Vol. I. 226. Interference with Eight — Obstructions. — See notes 3, 6, 7. 227. (2) Access Obstructed by Semi-public Improvements — Steam Railroads. — See note 2. Street Railways. — See note 3. Louisiana. — Walker u. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 2036. Maryland. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441 ; Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerating, etc., Co., (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 21. Missouri. — Longworth v. Sedevic, 165 Mo. 221. New York. — Finegan v. Eckerson, (Supm. Ct. Speci T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.)- 574. North Dakota. — Donovan v. Allert, 11 N. Dak. 289, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720. Ohio. — Caller v. Columbus Edison Electric Light Co., 66 Ohio St. 166; Wilder v. Cincin- nati, 4 Ohio Dec. 104, 1 Ohio N. P. 347 ; Mad- den v. Pennsylvania R. Co., n Ohio Cir. Dec. 571. 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 73. Tennessee. — Perkins v. Ross, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 42 S. W. Rep. 61, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225 [226]. Texas. — Kalteyer v. Sullivan, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 488. Washington. — Swope v. Seattle, 35 Wash. 69 ; State v. Superior Ct., 26 Wash. 278. - West Virginia. — • Pence v. Bryant, 54 W. Va. 266, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 224 [226]. Wisconsin. — Zehren v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 99 Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844. 226. 3. Ordinance Authorizing the Stationing of Coaches in Front of Abutting Premises. — Penn- sylvania Co. v. Donovan, 116 Fed. Rep. 907. 6. Appropriating Streets for Market Purposes. — Richmond v. Smith, 148 Ind. 294. 7. Bridges and Viaducts Constructed by Public Authority. — Chicago v. LeMoyne, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 662; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, S3 111. App. 263; Chicago v. Webb, 102 111. App. 232; Dairy v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 113 Iowa 716. 227. 2. Damages Allowed for Obstruction by Steam Railroad) — Alabama. — Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 119 Ala, 137. Connecticut. — McKeon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 343. Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. West Chi- cago St. R. Co., 156 111. 255; Bond v. Pennsyl- vania Co., 171 111. 508. Kentucky. — Maysville, etc., R. Co. v. In- gram, (Ky. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 8; Louisville Southern R. Co. v. Hooe, (Ky. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 266. Maryland. — Lake Roland El. R. Co. v. Webster, 81 Md. 529; Baltimore Belt R. Co. v. McColgan, 83 Md. 650. Missouri. — Stevenson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Mo. 1895) 31 S. W. Rep. 793. Nebraska. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sturey, 55 Neb. 137. New York. — Peck v. Schenectady R. Co., 170 N. Y. 298. Tennessee. — Brumit v. Virginia, etc., R. Co., 106 Tenn. 124; Tennessee Brewing Co. v. Union R. Co., (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 864. Texas. — Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Daniels, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 29 S. W. Rep. 695. Washington. — Kaufman v. Tacoma, etc., R. Co., 11 Wash. 632. Compare the following cases : Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 501 ; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 521 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Turner, 97 111. App. 219, affirmed 194 111. 575; Stephenson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 68 Mo. App. 642 ; Schaaf v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 66 Ohio St. 215. 3. Electrical Railways — Alabama. — Baker v. Selma St., etc., R. Co., 130 Ala. 474; Baker v. Selma St., etc., R. Co., 135 Ala. 552, 93 Am. St. Rep. 42 ; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birm- ingham R., etc., Co., 119 Ala. 137. Delaware. — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Wilmington City R. Co., (Del. Ch. 1897) 38 Atl. Rep. 1067. Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta R., etc., Co., in Ga. 679. Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. General ' Electric R. Co., 79 111. App. 569 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 156 111. 255, affirming 54 111. App. 273. Indiana. — Mordhurst v. Ft. Wayne, etc., Traction Co., (Ind. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 642. Iowa. — Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. R". Co., 105 Iowa 284. Kentucky. — Ashland, etc., St. R. Co. v. Faulkner, 106 Ky. 332. Maine. — Taylor v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Me. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216; Mil- bridge, etc., Electric R. Co., Appellants, 96 Me. no. Massachusetts. — Baker v. Boston El. R. Co., 183 Mass. 178; Eustis v. Milton St. R. Co., 183 Mass. 586. New Jersey. — Montclair Military Academy v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 229. Ohio. — Parrish v. Hamilton, etc., Traction Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 527. Pennsylvania. — Osborne v. Delaware County, etc., Electric R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 632; Patterson v. Pittston, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 530. Texas. — San Antonio Rapid Transit St. R. Co. v. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 53 Am. St. Rep. 73°- Wisconsin. — La Crosse City R. Co. v. Hig- bee, 107 Wis. 389 ; Linden Land Co. u. Mil- waukee Electric R., etc., Co., 107 Wis. 493. But if the railroad is so constructed as to interfere with the abutter's access to his prop- erty he is entitled to compensation. Jaynes v. Omaha St. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631. Carrier of Goods. — A street railway, used as a commercial railway for the carriage of freight, imposes an additional servitude on the street. Rische v. Texas Transp. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33- Embankments — Change of Grade. — In con- structing the roadbed upon a highway the grade or level of the street must be conformed to. If embankments are raised to place the 24 Vol. I. ABUTTING OWNERS. 228 239 228. See notes i, 2. Telegraph and Telephone Poles and Wires. — Pipe Lines. — See note 6. b. Enjoyment .of Light and Air. 229. In Hew York. — See note i. In Minnesota. — See note 2. c. Preservation of Property - Subjacent Support. — See note 4. See notes 4, 5. — See note 8. - (1) In General — Lateral and road above the level of the street the abutting owners are entitled to damages for the obstruc- tion of access to their property. Farrar v. Mid- land Electric R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 140. And the same was held when the street was graded down. Zehren v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 99 Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844. Country Roads, — ■ Electric street railways have been held not to be an additional burden on country roads. Ranken v. St. Louis, etc., Suburban R. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 479 ; Lonaconing Midland, etc., R. Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 95 Md. 630; Austin v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 134 Mich. 149, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 421 ; Ehret v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 171 ; Akron, etc., R. Co. v. Keck, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 57. Contra. — In Zehren v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 99 Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844, the court very fully discussed the distinction between a country highway and a city street, and decided that an electric railway on a coun- try road is an additional burden upon the high- way. To the same effect, see Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Milwaukee, etc., Electric R. Co., 95 Wis. 561, 60 Am. St. Rep. 137. Question Unsettled in New Jersey. — The con- tention that the construction of an electric railway upon a country road imposes a servi- tude in addition to that charged upon the lands by the original taking for a public high- way, entitling the owner of the fee to additional compensation to be first made, was said to be an unsettled question in New Jersey. Ehret v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 246. 228. 1. Horse Railways. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 156 111. 255; Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358 ; Taylor v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Me. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216 ; Patterson v. Pittston, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 530 ; Zehren v. Mil- waukee Electric R., etc., Co., 99 Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844. In Massachusetts the laying of a private horse railway for the carrying of stone from a quarry was held not to be an additional burden which would entitle the abutting owner to damages. White v. Blanchard Bros. Granite Co., 178 Mass. 363. 2. Taylor v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Mo. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216. See also Case v. Cayuga County, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 59 ; Rische v. Texas Transp. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33. 4. Telegraph and Telephone Companies — Il- linois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. West Chi- cago St. R. Co., 156 111. 255; Doane v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 165 111. 519, 56 Am. St. Rep. 265 ; Union Electric Telephone, etc., Co. v. Applequist, 104 111. App. 517. Kentucky. — East . Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Russellville, 106 Ky. 667. Maine. — Taylor v. Portsmouth, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Me. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216. Mississippi. — Hazlehurst v. Mayes, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 33. Nebraska. — Bronson v. Albion Tel. Co., (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 201. North Dakota. — Donovan v. Allert, 1 1 N. Dak. 289, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720. Ohio. — Callen v. Columbus Edison Electric Light Co., 66 Ohio St. 166. West Virginia. — Maxwell v. Central Dist., etc., Tel. Co., 51 W. Va. 121. Wisconsin. — Krueger v. Wisconsin Tele- phone Co., 106 Wis. 96. 5. Richmond v. Smith, 148 Ind. 294; Magee ■u. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358 ; Loeber v. Butte Gen. Electric Co., 16 Mont. 1, 50 Am. St. Rep. 468; Auerbach v. Cuyahoga Telephone Co., 9 Ohio Dec. 389. 6. Pipe Lines in Street. — Huddleston v. Eu- gene, 34 Oregon 343. Conduit for Telephone Wires. — Coburn v. New Telephone Co., 156 Ind. 90. 8. Light and Air. — Montgomery First Nat. Bank v. Tyson, 133 Ala. 459, 91 Am. St. Rep. 46; Brown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal. 274; John Anisfield Co. v. Grossman, 98 111. App. 180 ; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441. 229. 1. Elevated Railroad Cases. — Lewis v. New York, etc., R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 13 ; Rorke v. Kings County El. R. Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 511 ; Auchincloss v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Dir. 63; Roberts v. New York El. R. Co., 155 N. Y. 31. Compare Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. v. Goll, 100 111. App. 323; Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. v. Springer, 171 111. 170; Seattle Transfer Co. v. Seattle, 27 Wash. 520. In Missouri the same doctrine has been fol- lowed in elevated railroad cases. See De Geofroy v. Merchant's Bridge Terminal R. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524. 2. Extension of Doctrine to Ordinary Steam Railroads in Certain Cases. — In Kentucky the same doctrine has been adopted. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Gross, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 203. 4. Lateral Support of Land. — Edinburgh, etc., Trustees v. Clippens Oil Co., Sc. Ct. of Sess. 3 F. 156. See also the following cases: Illinois. — Schroeder v. Joliet, 189 111. 48. Michigan. — Hemsworth v. Cushing, 115 Mich. 92. Missouri. ■ — Eads v. Gains, 58 Mo. App. 586. New York. — Finegan v. Eckerson, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 233 ; White v. Tebo, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 418; Gillies v. Eckerson, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 153. Oregon. — Mosier v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 39 25 230 233 ABUTTING OWNERS. Vol. I. 330. See note I. Bule as to Acquired Easement of Support. — See note 2. zw,/V> 231. (2) Compensation for Indirect Impairment m Value by Public Improvements — Common-law Rule. — See note 3- 233. Under Constitutions and Statutes. — See note 2. Milwaukee Electric Oregon 258, 87 Am. St. Rep. 652, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 229. Pennsylvania. — Jones v. Greenfield, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 315. South Carolina. — Bailey v. Gray, 53 S. Car. 503- 230. 1. Schroeder v. Joliet, 189 111. 48; Joliet v. Schroeder, 92 111. App. 68; Cabot v. Kingman, 166 Mass. 403; Abrey v. Detroit, 127 Mich. 374, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 311; Eads v. Gains, 58 Mo. App. 586. In Finegan v. Eckerson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 574, the court said: " The right to lateral support between adjoin- ing owners does not include the right to the support of an artificial structure, [but] that doctrine has no application to the case of a highway. Milburn v. Fowler, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 568. The plaintiff is entitled to the lateral support of the highway for her building as against a wrongdoer, and as any unlawful obstruction or interference with a highway is, per se, a nuisance, negligence in the digging need not be shown." 2. Buildings and Additional Burdens — Georgia. — Bass v. West, no Ga. 698. Maryland. — Serio v. Murphy, (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 435. Missouri. — Obert v. Dunn, 140 Mo. 476. New York. — Gillies v. Eckerson, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 153; Finegan v. Eckerson, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 233 ; White v. Tebo, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 418. Pennsylvania. — Spohn v. Dives, 174 Pa. St. 474 ; Jones v. Greenfield, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 315- South Dakota. — Novotny v. Danforth, 9 S. Dak. 301. In New York the adjoining owner must pro- tect at his own expense a wall on or near the boundary line if he intends to excavate to a depth of more than ten feet (Laws 1855, c. 6, p. n). Korn v. Weir, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 976. Lateral Support of Adjoining Building. — Where two houses do not have * common origin the owner of one cannot claim an easement of sup- port unless the owner of the other house knew or was in a position to know that his house was thus serving as a lateral support. Gately v. Martin, (1900) 2 Ir. 269. 231. 3. Ho Common-law Bight to Compensa- tion — Illinois. — Chicago Office Bldg. v. Lake St. EI. R. Co., 87 111. App. 594. Indiana. — Hirth v. Indianapolis, 18 Ind. App. 673. Maryland. — Baltimore v. Cowen, 88 Md. 447, 71 Am. St. Rep. 433 ; Offutt v. Montgomery County, 94 Md. 115. Massachusetts. — Underwood v. Worcester 1.77 Mass. 173. Montana. — Less v. Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545. New York. — Ehrsam v. Utica, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 272. Wisconsin. — Zehren v. R., etc., Co., 99 Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844. 233. 2. Damages Allowed by Constitution or Statute — United States. — Chicago v. Baker, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 753; Chicago v. Le Moyne, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 662. California. — Eachus v. Los Angeles, 130 Cal. 492. Colorado. — Denver v. Bonesteel, 30 Colo. 107. Connecticut. — McKeon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 343. Illinois. — Kotz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 70 111. App. 284 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davis, 71 111. App. 99 ; Marshall v. Chicago, 77 I1L App. 351; Chicago Office Bldg. v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 87 111. App. 594; Joliet v. Schroeder, 189 111. 48, affirming 92 111. App. 68 ; Metropoli- tan West Side El. R. Co. v. Goll, 100 111. App. 323; Chicago v. McShane, 102 111. App. 239; Joliet v. Blower, 155 111. 414; Chicago v. Jack- son, 196 111. 496. Kentucky. — Henderson v. McClain, 102 Ky. 402 ; Ludlow v. Detweller, (Ky. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 881 ; Louisville v. Hegan, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 532; Layman o. Beeler, 113 Ky. 221 ; Board of Councilmen v. Edelen, 82 S. W. Rep. 279, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 601. Minnesota. — Dickerman v. Duluth,88 Minn. 288. Mississippi. — Rainey v. Hinds County, 78 Miss. 308. Missouri. — Hulett v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 87. Montana. — Less v. Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545. Nebraska. — Jaynes v. Omaha St. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631. New Jersey. — Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 565. New York. — Matter of Andersen, 178 N. Y. 416. Compare Fries v. New York, etc., R. Co., 169 N. Y. 270. Ohio. — Toledo Bending Co. v. Manufactur- ers' R. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 430, 2 Ohio N. P. 317. Oregon. — Mosier v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 39 Oregon 256, 87 Am. St. Rep. 652. Pennsylvania. — Lafean v. York County, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 573 ; In re Walnut St. Bridge, 191 Pa. St. 153. South Carolina. — Paris Mountain Water Co. v. Greenville, 53 S. Car. 82 ; Garraux v. Green- ville, 53 S. Car. 575. South Dakota.- — Searle u. Lead, 10 S. Dak. 312; Whittaker v. Deadwood, 12 S. Dak. 608. Tennessee. — Knoxville v. Harth, 105 Tenn. 436, 80 Am. St. Rep. 901. Texas. — Rische v. Texas Transp. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33. Washington. — State ,v. Superior Ct., 26 Wash. 278 ; Seattle Transfer Co. v. Seattle, 27 Wash. 520 ; Swope v. Seattle, 35 Wash. 69. But see Hirth u. Indianapolis, 18 Ind. App. 673- In Aicher v. Denver, 10 Colo. App. 413, it 26 Vol. I. ABUTTING OWNERS. 334-338 234. 2. Right of Abutting Owners to Use of Streets — a. FOR Purposes OF DEPOSIT, ETC. — Building Materials. — See note 2. 233. Deposit of Goods by Tradesmen. — See note I. Use Must Be Reasonable. — See note 2. Considerations Determining the Question of Reasonableness, — See note 3. Obstructing Street Cars. — See note 4. b. PROJECTIONS, EXCAVATIONS, ETC. — Certain Projections as Nuisances. — See notes 5, 6, 10, 1 1, 12. 236. Bight of Municipality to Forbid Excavations. — See notes 4.5. Permission as to Projections and Excavations Revocable Without Compensation. — See note 8. 3. Abutters upon Rural Roads— a. Restrictions upon Rights OF PUBLIC IN RURAL ROADS — Rural and Urban Highways Distinguished. — See note 11. 237. See note 1. 'Rights of Rural Abutter at Common Law. — See note 2. 238. See note 1. was held that the making of public improve- ments under direct and positive legislative au- thority, although it may cause damage to abut- ting owners by its indirect consequences, does not constitute a taking within the constitutional provision which forbids the taking of private property for public purposes without just com- pensation. The public may regulate by law the use of its public ways in such manner as the legislature may think will best serve the public interest. The kind of use that may be permitted is of no consequence to the abutting landowner. He has been paid his damages for the creation of the way, so the public controls its use, and he must take his chances, with the rest of the community in which he lives, of any incon- venience suffered by reason of the use that the public may see fit to permit. Taylor v. Ports- mouth, etc., St. R. Co., 91 Me. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216. In Oregon, under the constitution, the abut- ting owner is not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from the change of grade of a street. Brand v. Multnomah County, 38 Oregon 79, 84 Am. St. Rep. 772. 234. 2. Right of Abutter to Deposit Building Materials. — McKeon v. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 343 ; Martin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 111. App. 208; Perry v. Castner, 124 Iowa 386; Strauss v. Louisville, 108 Ky. 155 ; Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerating, etc., Co., (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 21 ; Richmond v. Smith, 101 Va. 161. 235. 1. Merchants Loading and Unloading Goods. — Atty.-Gen. v. Brighton, etc., Co-op- erative Supply Assoc, (1900) 1 Ch. 276, 69 L. J. Ch. 204; Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerat- ing, etc., Co., (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 21 ; Richmond v. Smith, 101 Va. 161. 2. Use Must Be Temporary Only — England. — Atty.-Gen. v. Brighton, etc., Co-operative Sup- ply Assoc, (1900) 1 Ch. 276, 69 L. J. Ch. 204. Illinois. — Martin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 111. App. 208. Iowa. — Perry v. Castner, 124 Iowa 386. Maryland. — Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerat- ing, etc., Co., (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 21. Missouri. — Corby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. 457. Virginia. — Richmond v. Smith; 101 Va. 161. 3. Question of Reasonableness — Upon What Dependent. — Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerating, etc., Co., (Md. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 21 ; Morris v. Whipple, 183 Mass. 27. 4. Drays and Trucks Obstructing Street Cars. — See Patterson v. Pittston, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 530. 5. Bay Window. — People v. Harris, 203 111. 272, 96 Am. St. Rep. 304; John Anisfield Co. v. Grossman, 98 111. App. 180; Forbes v. Detroit, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 740; State v. Kean, 69 N. H. 122. 6. Passageway. — Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441; Beecher v. Newark, 64 N.J. L. 475, affirmed 65 N. J. L. 307. 10. Awnings. — Hibbard v. Chicago, 173 111. 91 ; Ivins v. Trenton, 68 N. J. L. 501. 11. Forbes v. Detroit, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 740. 12. Hay Scales. — Tell City v. Bielefeld, 20 Ind. App. i. 236. 4. See Dell Rapids Mercantile Co. v. Dell Rapids, n S. Dak. 116, 74 Am. St. Rep. 783. 5. Heineck v. Grosse, 99 111. App. 441 ; Perry v. Castner, 124 Iowa 386 ; Deshong v. New York, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 234. 8. See Tell City v. Bielefeld, 20 Ind. App. 1. 11. Rural Highways Distinguished from Urban. — Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 12; Auerbach v. Cuyahoga Telephone Co., 9 Ohio Dec. 389. 237. 1. Rights of Rural Abutter the More Extensive. — Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358 ; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N. Y. 231, reversing 6 N. Y. App. Div. 12. 2. Rural Abutter as Proprietor. — Huffman v. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 69 Am. St. Rep. 368; Denver v. U. S. Telephone Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 273 ; Clay v. Hart, (County Ct.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) no; Krueger v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 106 Wis. 96. 23§. 1. Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 111. 513, 62 Am. St. Rep. 390; Blennerhassett v. Forest City, 117 Iowa 680; Poole v. Falls Road Electric R. Co., 88 Md. 533; Callen v. 27 338 344 ABUTTING OWNERS. Vol. 1. 238. Public Have Only Easement of Passage. — See note 2. 339. Pipe Lines. — See note 4. 340. Poles. — See note 2. 341. See note 1. 343! b. Extent of Abutters' Rights in Rural Roads — son of Highway, Minerals, Etc. — See note 3. Trees — Grass — Herbage. — See note 4. 343. See note 1. How These Rights May Be Protected. — See notes 2, 3, 4. Construction of Underground Passageway. — See note 5- Fencing up Part of Highway. — See note 6. IV. Liabilities of Abutting Owners — Defects in Highway ; General Eule. — ■ See note 7. 344. When Defect Is Occasioned by Abutter. — See note 2. Columbus Edison Electric Light Co., 66 Ohio St. 166. See also Milbridge, etc., Electric R. Co., Appellants, 96 Me. no. 23§. 2. Public Bight Restricted to Easement of Passage. — Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 215, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 238 ; Huffman v. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 69 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; Glencoe v. Reed, 93 Minn. 518; Callen v. Columbus Edison Electric Light Co., 66 Ohio St. 166. 239. 4. Pipe Lines in Rural Highways. — Huffman v. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 69 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; Ward v. Triple State Natural Gas, etc., Co., 115 Ky. 723; Biddle v. Wayne Water- works Co., 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 373. 240. 2. Poles in Highway — Prevailing Doc- trine. — Kester v. Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 926 ; Goddard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 104 111. App. 533 ; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 111. 513, 62 Am. St. Rep. 390; Gray v. New York State Telephone Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 108; Denver v. U. S. Telephone Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 273. 241. 1. Doctrine that Poles Are Not an Addi- tional Burden. — McCann v. Johnson County Telephone Co., (Kan. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 870 ; Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exch. Co., 60 Minn. 539, 51 Am. St. Rep. 543. See also Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N. Y. 231, reversing 6 N. Y. App. Div. 12. 242. 3. Rights of Rural Abutter to Soil of Highway, Mines, Pasturage, Etc. — Wright v. Austin, 143 Cal. 236, 101 Am. St. Rep. 97; Glencoe v. Reed, 93 Minn. 518; Piatt v. One- onta, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 192 ; Clutter v. Davis, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 532. The Digging of Wells for the purpose of fur- nishing water to persons and animals passing over the highway is not a right incidental to the use of the land as a highway. Clutter v. Davis, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 532. 4, Trees Growing in Highway. — Clutter v. Davis, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 532. 243. 1. Herbage, — Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 12. 2. Huffman v. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 69 Am. St. Rep. 368. 3. Postal Tel.-Cable Co. u. Eaton, 170 111. 513, 62 Am. St. Rep. 390. 4. Wright v. Austin, 143 Cal. 236, 101 Am. St. Rep. 97; Bond v. Pennsylvania Co., 171 III. 508 ; Schaaf v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 66 Ohio- St. 215. 5. Clay v. Hart, (County Ct.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) no. 6. Atlantic City v. Snee, 68 N. J. L. 39; Winslow v. Cincinnati, 9 Ohio Dec. 89, 6 Ohio N. P. 47. 7. Nonliability of Abutters for Mere Defects in Highway. — Rupp v. Burgess, 70 N. J. L. 7 ; Fielders v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 352, 96 Am. St. Rep. 552 ; Independence v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 585 ; Beck v. Ferd Heim Brewing Co., 167 Mo. 195; Lincoln v. Janesch, 63 Neb. 707, 93 Am. St. Rep. 478; Watson v. Webb, 28 Wash. 580; Cooper v. Waterloo, 88 Wis. 433 ; Fife v. Osh- kosh, 89 Wis. 540. Compare Devine v. Fon du Lac, 113 Wis. 61. 244. 2. Abutters' Liabilities for Defects in Highway Caused by Them — Illinois. — Nelson v. Fehd, 104 111. App. 114, affirmed 203 111. 120. Massachusetts. — ■ Davis v. Rich, 180 Mass. 235- New Jersey. — Rupp v. Burgess, 70 N. J. L. 7; O'Malley v. Gerth, 67 N. J. L. 610. New York. — Devine v. National Wall Paper Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 194; Tremblay v. Har- mony Mills, 171 N. Y. 598. Pennsylvania. — Brown v. White, 202 Pa. St. 297. Rhode Island. — Reynolds v. Garst, 25 R. I.83. Wisconsin. — Cooper v. Waterloo, 88 Wis. 433; Busse v. Rogers, 120 Wis. 443. 28 ACCESSION. By W. B. Robinson. 249. III. Application of the Doctrine to Personalty — 1. Labor Per- formed upon, or Materials Added to, Property Without Owner's Consent — a. Under a Bona Fide Mistake as to Ownership. — See note 3. 251. Test as to Value. — See note I. 252. c. Liability of Owner for Compensation — wilful wrongdoer. — See note 3. 233. When No Liability Exists, Though There Is Honest Mistake. — See note I. d. What Constitutes a Change of Species. — See note 2. 254. 2. Mortgages of Personalty — Live stock — See note 3. 255. IV. Application of the Doctrine to Personalty When Annexed to Realty — General Rule. — See notes 1, 2. 256. Qualification. — See note i. 249. 3. Trees Made into Ties. — The owner of trees made into ties by an innocent tres- passer is entitled to a judgment for the delivery of such ties, or, if delivery be impossible, to a judgment for the value of the ties, less the value of the labor expended thereon. Eaton v. Lang- ley, 65 Ark. 448. 251. 1. See Eaton v. Langley, 65 Ark. 448. 252. S. Finnell v. Million, 99 Mo. App. 552, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 252. 253. 1. See Eaton v. Langley, 65 Ark. 448. 2. Change of Identity. — See Swoop v. St. Mar- tin, no La. 237. 254. 3. Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Free- man, 171 U. S. 620; Cumberland Bank v. Baker, 57 N. J. Eq. 569- 255. 1. Crops. — See Winkler v. Gibson, 2 Kan. App. 621. 2. Pomeroy v. Bell, 118 Cal. 635; Wright v. Du Bignon, 114 Ga. 765; Ebersol v. Trainor, 81 111. App. 645; Swoop v. St. Martin, no La. 237 ; Fortescue v. Bowler, 55 N. J. Eq. 741. See also Bemis v. First Nat. Bank, 63 Ark. 625 ; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stanton, 59 Minn. 532 ; • Capehart v. Foster, 61 Minn. 132, 52 Am. St. Rep. 582; Quimby v. Straw, 71 N. H. 160; Bridges v. Thomas, 8 Okla. 620 ; Menger v. Ward, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 821 ; Stack v. T. Eaton Co., 4 Ont. L. Rep. 335. And see the title Fixtures, vol. 13, p. 594. Manure Made upon a Farm. — Taylor v. New- comb, 123 Mich. 637 ; Collier v. Jenks, 19 R. I. 137, 61 Am. St. Rep. 741. See also the title Leases. 256. 1. Agreement that House Shall Remain Personalty. — Peaks v. Hutchinson, 96 Me. 530. See also Hershberger v. Johnson, 37 Oregon 109; Wright v. MacDonnell, 88 Tex. 140; and see the title Fixtures, vol. 13, p. 622. Agreement for Tenant to Remove House Within Limited Time. — See Sampson -u. Camperdown Cotton Mills, 64 Fed. Rep. 939. Subsequent Purchaser ; How Affected by Such Agreements. — Where the defendant affixed per- sonalty to the realty under an agreement with the owner to remove it at any time, it was held that the subsequent grantee, in the ab- sence of notice, was not bound by the agree- ment. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Beadle, 6 Kan. App. 922, 50 Pac. Rep. 988 ; Jones v. Cooley, 106 Iowa 165; Thomson v. Smith, in Iowa 718, 82 Am. St. Rep. 541 ; Landigan v. Mayer, 32 Oregon 245, 67 Am. St. Rep. 521. See also Trask v. Little, 182 Mass. 8; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Tillery, 152 Mo. 421. But see Peaks v. Hutchinson, 96 Me. 530 ; W. T. Adams Mach. Co. v. Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n, 119 Ala. 97. Consent of Owner of Land to Erection of House. — See Salley v. Robinson, 96 Me. 474. Intention. — Dutton v. Ensley, 21 Ind. App. 46, 69 Am. St. Rep. 340. 29 ACCESSORY. 257. 258. 259. 260. By L. C. Boehm. I. DEFINITIONS — Accessory Generally. — See note I . Accessory Before the Fact. — See note I. Accessory After the Fact. — See note 2. II. Accessory Distinguished from Principal. — See note 3. 1. Constructive Presence. — See notes 4, 5, 6. 2. Actors in a Common Criminal Design. — See note 1. III. Who May Be an Accessory. — See note 3. IV. Offenses Which Admit of Accessories — common-iaw Felony. — See note 4. 257. 1. Komrs v. People, 31 Colo. 214 citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 257; State v. Berger, 121 Iowa 585, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 257 ; State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422; Reg. v. Camp- bell, 2 Can. Crim. Cas. (Quebec) 357, 8 Quebec Q. B. 322. Mansf. Dig. Ark., § 1505, defines an accessory as one " who stands by, aids, abets, or assists," in the execution of. a crime. Under the com- mon law one so indicted would be a principal, and so his guilt would not be dependent upon the guilt of the principal in the first degree. Williams v. U. S., 1 Indian Ter. 560. By the Texas statute (Pen. Code 1895, art. 86) an accessory is defined as " one who know- ing that an offense has been committed conceals the offender, or gives him any other aid in or- der that he may evade an arrest or trial or the execution of his sentence." Street v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 134- A Mere Spectator Is Not an Accessory under the Illinois code making those who are present aiding and abetting accessories and punishable as principals. Jones v. People, 166 111. 264. 258. 1. Riggins v. State, 116 Ga. 592; Begley v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 285; Pearce v. Territory, 1 1 Okla. 438 ; State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422. See also Lamb v. State, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 1050. Crim. Code Neb., §§ 1, 2, defining accesso- ries, is in accord with the common law, and so one who aids and abets, being present, is a principal and not an accessory. Dixon v. State, 46 Neb. 298; Casey v. State, 49 Neb. 403. 2. People v. Garnett, 129 Cal. 364 ; Ander- son v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 83 ; Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1000. Some Overt Active Assistance, such as fur- nishing the person who has committed the principal crime with a horse to flee on, or giving him a gun with the view of resisting arrest, is necessary to make one an accessory after the fact. Chenault v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 971. 3. Principal and Accessory Before the Fact Dis- tinguished. — Grimsinger v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 21, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. qf Law (2d ed.) 258. See also Wilkerson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 57 S. W. Rep. 956; Mitchell v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 228. 4. Absence Necessary to Constitute an Accessory. — Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 ; State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422. How Modified by Some of the Criminal Codes. — See Jones v. People, 166 111. 264. 5. Under the Colorado Statute " an accessory during the fact is a person who stands by, with- out interfering or giving such help as may be in his or her power to prevent a criminal offense from being committed." Farrell v. People, 8 Colo. App. 524. 6. State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422. 259. 1. When All the Participants Are Prin- cipals — Accomplices and Principals Distinguished. - — People v. Repke, 103 Mich. 459 ; State v. Paxton, 126 Mo. 500; Pryor v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 643 ; Williamson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 2 9 S. W. Rep. 470; English v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 190 ; Winnard v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 555 ; Tittle v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 31 S. W. Rep. 677; McDonald v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 556 ; Isaacs v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 505 ; Colter v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 284 ; B-arnett v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1013. In order that confederates in crime may be guilty as principals, " the statute requires either their presence and participancy, or if the par- ties were not actually present, then those not actually present must be doing some act in furtherance of the common design, or they must be engaged in procuring aid or arms or means of some kind to assist in the commission of the offense while the others are executing the unlawful act." Wright v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 45- 260. 3. State v. Rowe, 104 Iowa 323 ; State v. Elliott, 61 Kan. 523, both cases citing \ Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 260. A man may be guilty of raping his wife by aiding and abetting another man to violate her person, even though he could not be guilty of the actual doing of the offense. State v. Haines, 51 La. Ann. 731. 4. Lay v. State, 12 Ind. App. 362 ; Wagner ■u. State, 43 Neb. 1. Murder in the Third Degree is a crime to which 30 Vol. I. ACCESSORY. 260 263 360. Statutory Felony. — See. notes 5, 6t 261. Misdemeanor. — See note I. 263. V. Dependence of Accessory on Principal — 1. At Common Law — In What Manner Distinct. — See note I. In What Manner Dependent. — See note 3. 2. As Modified by Statute — Accessory Before the Fact. — See notes 5, 6. there may be accessories. Mathis v. State, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 287. 260. 5. Murder in Second Degree. — Hewitt v. State, 43 Fla. 194. 6. Attempt to Commit Arson. — Under section 136 of the Georgia Penal Code one who aids another in " the wilful and malicious burning, or setting fire to, or attempting to burn," etc., may be an accessory to the attempt to commit arson. Howard v. State, 109 Ga. 137. 261. 1. Misdemeanors — United States. — • Gallot v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 446. Alabama. — Bowen v. State, 131 Ala. 39. Georgia. — Slaughter v. State, 113 Ga. 284, 84 Am. St. Rep. 242. Indiana. — Lay v. State, 12 Ind. App. 362. Kansas. — State v. Stark, 63 Kan. 529, 88 Am. St. Rep. 251. Missouri. — State v. McLain, 92 Mo. App. 456. Nebraska. — Wagner v. State, 43 Neb. 1 ; Casey v. State, 49 Neb. 403. New York. — People v. City Prison, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 89 N. Y. Supp. 322. North Carolina. — ■ State v. De Boy, 117 N. Car. 702. Texas. — Winnard v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 555; Caudle v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 545. Canada. — Walsh v. Trebilcock, 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 693. Illustrations — Assault and Battery. — East- erlin v. State, 43 Fla. 565. Betting on Election. — Schwartz v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 26. Keeping Gaming House. — Atkins v. State, 95 Tenn. 474- Selling of Liquor Without License. — Bonds v. State, 130 Ala. 117, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 62 [261] ; Bolton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 43 S. W. Rep. 984. Making Counterfeit Money. — ■ Bliss v. U. S., (C. C. A.) ios Fed. Rep. 508. Illegal Disposition of a Dead Body. — Thomp- son v. State, 105 Tenn. 177, 80 Am. St. Rep. 875. Selling Lottery Tickets. — Kaufman v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 771. 263. 1. Riggins v. State, 116 Ga. 592; Oerter v. State, 57 Neb. 135; Casey v. State, 49 Neb. 403 ; State v . Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422. 3. Brooks v. State, 103 Ga. 50; Williams v. U. S., 1 Indian Ter. 560; Strait v. State, 77 Miss. 693 ; Com. v. House, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 259 ; Kingsbury v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 259. See also Begley v. Com, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 285. Under Penal Code Cal., § 32, providing for the punishment of accessories to a "person charged " with a felony, it is necessary first that the criminal should be indicted and charged, or an information filed against him. People v. Garnett, 129 Cal. 364. Penal Code Tex., art. 90, provides for the trial of an accessory before the principal when the principal has escaped The principal if caught must be tried first, and if acquitted the accessory must be freed ; also, a brother cannot be accessory to a principal. Therefore an accessory must be discharged upon the death of his principal unconvicted. Moore v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 389. One Who Counsels, Advises, and Procures the Commission of a Crime may be convicted of a higher degree of the offense than the one who perpetrates the crime. State v. Gray, 55 Kan. 135- 5. State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113; State v. Rowe, 104 Iowa 323 ; Com. v. Bradley, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 561 ; State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422. The Texas Penal Code provides for the trial and indictment of an accessory, before that of the principal, when the principal has escaped. Under this statute a judgment against an acces- sory is evidence against the principal. Dent v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 126. 6. Accessory Before the Fact Regarded as Sub- stantive Offender — United States. — Pearce v. Oklahoma, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 425. Alabama. — ■ Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63. Arkansas. — Greene v. State, (Ark. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 1038. California. — People v. Ruiz, 144 Cal. 251; People v. Chin Yuen, 144 Cal. xvii, 77 Pac. Rep. 954; People v. Collum, 122 Cal. 186. Colorado. — ■ Noble v. People, 23 Colo. 9 ; Komrs v. People, 31 Colo. 214. Connecticut. — State v. Kaplan, 72 Conn. 635. Delaware. — State v. Pullen, 3 Penn. (Del.) 184; State v. Mills, 3 Penn. (Del.) 508. Idaho. — State v. Bland, (Idaho 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 780. Illinois. — Fixmer v. People, 153 111. 123; McCracken v. People, 209 111. 215; Jones v. People, 166 111. 264. Iowa. — State v. Berger, 121 Iowa 585 ; State v. Smith, 100 Iowa 1 ; State v. Rowe, 104 Iowa 323; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113. Kentucky.- — -Com. v. Hicks, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 265 ; Begley v. Com., 82 S. W. Rep. 285, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 598. Missouri. — State v. Schuchmann, 133 Mo. 125, affirming 133 Mo. 114; State v. Edgen, 181 Mo. 582. Montana. — State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655 ; State v. Dotson, 26 Mont. 305 ; State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68. Nebraska. — -Oerter v. State, 57 Neb. 135; Casey v. State, 49 Neb. 403. New York. — -People v. Mills, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 195 ; People v. Winant, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 361 ; People v. Wilson, 145 N. Y. 628. North Dakota. — State v. Kent, 4 N. Dak. 577- Ohio. — State v. Snetl, 5 Ohio Dec. 8705 31 £04-968 ACCESSORY. Vol. I. 264. Accessory After the Fact. — See note I. 265. VI. Accessory Before the Fact — 2. Intent. — bee note 2. 3. Relation Between Crime and Incitement - m What Guilt Consists. — See note 4. 366. When a Different Crime Is Committed. — See note I. 267. VII. Accessory After the Fact — 3. Accessory s Knowledge of Fel- ony. — See note I. 4. Accessory's Act of Assistance. — See notes 2, 3. 268. See notes 2, 3, 4, 5. Wilson v. State, i Ohio Cir. Dec. 350 ; Jones v. State, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305, 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 35. Oklahoma. — Pearce v. Territory, 11 Okla. 438. Oregon. — State v. Steeves, 29 Oregon 85 ; State v. Branton, 33 Oregon 533 ; State v. Hinkle, 33 Oregon 93. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Bradley, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 561. Texas. — Red v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 667, 73 Am. St. Rep. 965. Washington. — State v. Gifford, 19 Wash. 464 ; State v. Golden, 1 1 Wash. 422. An accessory before the fact may be convicted ' of a higher offense than the person who actually committed the crime. State v. Gray, 55 Kan. i3S- 264. 1. State v. Hinkle, 33 Oregon 93. 265. 2. Knowledge and Concealment of Fact that Crime Is to Be Committed. — State v. Snell, 5 Ohio Dec. 670. An Overt Act Is Necessary to Constitute an Offense. — Anderson v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 83. 4. Parties are responsible for crimes result- ant from the general design but are not accom- plices to crimes that are independent and due to individual malice of the perpetrator. Alston v. State, 109 Ala. 51. Soliciting and Inciting. — See Lamb v. State, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 1050. 266. 1. When Crime Committed a Probable Consequence of the Advice. — Co-conspirators are not criminally liable as accessories before the fact, unless the crime was in furtherance of the conspiracy and a probable or necessary result of the objects contemplated. Powers v. Com., no Ky. 386. 267. 1. Knowledge of Accessory Requisite. — Whorley v. State, (Fla. 1903) 33 So. Rep. 849; State v. Miller, 182 Mo. 370; People v. Weisen- berger, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 428 ; Robbins v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 573. Parties Ignorant of Crime Who Render Aid After They Discover the Crime. — Those who begin to aid a thief to carry away stolen property not knowing it was stolen, but who learn the fact and continue to aid in the asportation, are guilty as principals. Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918. 2. Accessory Rendering Assistance. — Street v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 134; Caylor v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 118. Receiving Stolen Goods immediately after the commission of the crime renders one liable for aiding and abetting even though the;- goods be returned to the thief. Reg. v. Campbell, 8 Quebec Q. B. 322. Under the Connecticut statutes one who re- ceives stolen goods is an accessory and his liability is independent of that of the principal. State v. Kaplan, 72 Conn. 635. In construing Penal Code Ga., §§ 171, 172. the judge uses the following language: "In this state, receiving stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen, is indictable and punishable as an offense separate and distinct from the. larceny itself, although the offender's connection with the latter crime is recognized to be that of an accessory after the fact, and it is provided that he ' shall receive the same punishment as would be inflicted on the person convicted of having stolen or feloniously taken the property.' " Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447. Penal Code N. Y., § 550, providing for the offense of receiving stolen property, was con- strued to apply to a defendant who had allowed stolen money to be placed to his credit in bank. People v. Ammon, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 205. And see the title Receiving Stolen Goods. 3. What Constitutes an Accessory After the Fact. — Chitister v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 63s. One who, knowing that a crime has been com- mitted, makes an offer to the perpetrator that he will not prosecute if the latter will pay him what he owes him, which offer is not accepted, is not an accessory after the fact. Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1000. It is not essential that the aid rendered shall be of a character to enable the criminal to effect his personal escape or concealment, but it is sufficient if it enables him to evade present arrest and prosecution. Gatlin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 116. Illustration. — See Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151- 26§. 2. Mere Inaction or Omission Not Suffi- cient. — State v. Doty, 57 Kan. 840, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 269 [268]. There must be some affirmative act taken with a view to the concealment of the crime, in order to constitute one an accessory. People v. Garnett, 129 Cal. 364. One who is merely present at the commis- sion of a crime and who ^fails to report it is guilty of no offense. Monroe v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 726. An Agreement Not to Prosecute is in viola- tion of Penal Code Tex. 1895, .art. 291, and makes those so agreeing accessories after the fact. Gatlin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 116. 3. Chitister v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 635. A mother who advises her daughter to say that some one other than her stepfather is the father of an illegitimate child born to the daughter, is not an accessory after the fact. State v. Doty, 57 Kan. 835. 32 Vol. I. ACCESSORY— ACCIDENT (IN EQUITY). 268 28© 268. 269. note 3. 270. 271. 5. Harboring Wife or Kindred. — See note 7. IX. EVIDENCE — Accessory's Guilt Dependent upon That of Principal. Statutory Modifications — • See note 6. Record of Principal's Conviction as Evidence. — See note I. Corroboration of Evidence of Accessory After the Fact. — See note 2. X. Punishment. — See note 4. XI. Jurisdiction. — See note 2. See 272. ACCIDENT. 273. See note 2. 276. See note 1. See note 1. 26§. 4. Miller v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 996. See also Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1000. 6. Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151. 1 7. Statutory Exemptions. — See Adcock v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 288, construing Penal Code Tex. 87. See Crim. Code Ala., § 4309, for ex- emption of relatives from liability for harboring a criminal. Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63. Florida. — Rev. Stat. Fla., § 2356, reads : " Whoever not standing in the relation of hus- band or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother, or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, etc." Hearn v. State, 43 Fla. 151. 269. 3. State v. Lilly, 47 W. Va. 497, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 269. 6. Under Some Statutes Acquittal of Principal No Bar to Conviction of Accessory. — State v. Smith, 100 Iowa 4, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encvc. of Law (2d ed.) 269 ; State v. Edgen, 181 Mo. 582. 270. 1. Record of Principal's Conviction Prima Facie Evidence. — Dent v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 126, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 270. See also Tuttle v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 82. 2. Corroboration of Testimony of Accessory After the Fact Held Necessary. — Gatlin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 116. 4. When the principal is convicted of murder in the second degree an accessory before the fact may be convicted of manslaughter. State v. Steeves, 29 Oregon 85. 271. 2. The South Carolina statute (now Crim. Code S. Car., § 637) provides that the accessory after the fact may be convicted in any court thathas jurisdiction of the principal, " either in the county where such person be- came an accessory or in the county where the principal felony was committed." State v. Bur- bage, 51 S. Car. 284. 272. 1. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Nugent, 86 Md. 358, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law 272 ; Raiford v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 130 N. Car. 597. Accident and Injury. — As to a state of facts warranting the use of the term accident as the synonym of injury, see Smith v. Erie R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 636. 273. 2. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Nugent,- 86 Md. 358, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 273. 276. 1. Rogers v. Meyerson Printing Co., 103 Mo. App. 683. ACCIDENT (IN EQUITY). 277. I. Definition — Popular sense. — See note i. In Equity. — See note 3. 278. Accident — Surprise. — See note 2. II. Origin and Rationale of the Equitable Jurisdiction. — note 4. 280. III. In What Cases Equity Will Interpose — 2. Judgments — erai Rule. — See note 2. See Gen- 277. 1. See Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 146 Ind. 437, quoting i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 277. 3. Slingluff v. Gainer, 49 W. Va. 10, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 277. Other Definitions. — See Magann v. Segal, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 252. 278. 2. Zimmerer v. Fremont Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 661. 1 Supp E. of L.-3 33 4. Slingluff v. Gainer, 49 W. Va. is, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 278. 280. 2. L. Bucki, etc., Lumber Co. v. At- lantic Lumber Co., (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. R-^p. 1 ; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Stoltzenfeldt, 100 III. App. 142 ; Prussian Nat. Ins. Co. v. Chi- chocky, 94 111. App. 168, ACCIDENT INSURANCE. By H. N. Eldridge. 386. note 4. II. THE APPLICATION — Application Not Made Part of the Contract. — See 288. 391. General Eule of Construction. — See note 7. III. Payment of Premiums — 1. In General. — See note i. V. Consideration of the Teems of the Policy — 1. Accidents and Injuries Usually Insured Against — a. Accidental Injuries in General — Accident Defined. — ■ See note 6. 292. See note 2. 293. See note i. 286. 4. See Price v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 90 Minn. 264. In Maryland, by ^statute, misrepresentations which are not material to the risk do not affect the policy. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gehrmann, 96 Md. 634. 7. Contract Construed Liberally in Favor of In- sured. — Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 286. 288. 1. See Gainor v. St. Lawrence L. Assoc, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 27- 291. 6. United States. — Western Commer- cial Travelers' Assoc, v. Smith, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 401 ; ^Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Vandecar, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 282. Iowa. — Carnes v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 106 Iowa 281, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 291 ; Fedex v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 107 Iowa 538; Smouse v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 118 Iowa 436; Payne v. Fraternal Ace Assoc, 119 Iowa 342. Louisiana. — Konrad v. Union Casualty, etc, Co., 49 La. Ann. 636. Maine. — Matson v. Travellers Ins. Co., 93 Me. 469. Missouri. — Loesch v. Union Casualty, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 654. Nebraska. — Railway Officials, etc, Ace As- soc, v. Drummond, 56 Neb. 235 ; Western Trav- elers' Ace. Assoc, v. Holbrook, 65 Neb. 47s, affirming 65 Neb. 469. Pennsylvania. — Rose v. Commercial Mut. Ace Co., 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 394. Washington. — Horsfall v. Pacific Mut. L, Ins. Co., 32 Wash. 132, 98 Am. St. Rep. 846. Canada. — See Fowlie v. Ocean Ace, etc., Corp., 4 Ont. L. Rep. 146, affirmed 33 Can. Sup. Ct. 253. 292. 2. Sunstroke Not Accidental Injury. — See Railway Officials, etc., Ace Assoc, v. John- son, 109 Ky. 261, 95 Am. St. Rep. 370. Rupture of Blood Vessel Due to Lifting Heavy Weight was held not accidental, in view of the fact that insured was suffering at the time with arterial sclerosis. Niskern v. United Brother- hood, etc., 93 N, Y. App. Div. 364. Death Besnlting from Rupture of Artery as insured reached out to close a window was held not accidental, where nothing unforeseen occurred except the rupture. Feder v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 107 Iowa 538. Compare Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Schmaltz, 66 Ark. 588. Appendicitis Caused by Bicycle Bide, during which the muscles used in operating the ma- chine rubbed against the appendix and inflamed it, was held not to be accidental. Appel v. .Etna L. Ins. Co., 86 N. Y. App. Div. 83. 293. 1. Atlanta Ace Assoc, v. Alexander, 104 Ga. 709 ; Bailey v. Interstate Casualty Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 127, affirmed 158 N. Y. 723. Disease Caused by Accident. — Death from complication of diseases caused by injury to liver as result of accident. Woodmen Ace As- soc, v. Hamilton, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 989. Strains caused by stooping or lifting. Hors- fall v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 32 Wash. 132, 98 Am. St. Rep. 846. Blood poisoning resulting from cut made by insured with a knife while trimming corn, Nax v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 130 Fed. Rep. 985; or from abrasion of the skin of the foot, such abrasion resulting from the wearing of a new shoe, Western Commercial Travelers' Assoc. v. Smith, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 401 ; or from receiving wound on finger, Delaney w, Modern Ace Club, 121 Iowa 528. Kidney disease caused by handling infected rags. Columbia Paper Stock Co. it. Fidelity, etc., Co., 104 Mo. App. 157. Death from rheumatism caused by falling from vehicle. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 489. Accident Caused by Disease. — Injury resulting from vertigo. Interstate Casualty Co. v. Bird. 10 Ohio Cir. Dec 211. Drowning. — Peele v. Provident Fund Soc, 147 Ind. 543; De Van v. Commercial Trav- elers Mut. Ace Assoc, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 256, affirmed 157 N. Y. 690; U. S. Mutual Ace Assoc, v. Hubbell, 56 Ohio St. 516. Fighting. — See Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 591, 60 Am. St. Rep. 873. But death resulting from a quarrel in which 34 Vol. I. ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 294 299 394. Negligence — Intention. — See notes 1,2. b. External, Violent, and Accidental Means. — See note 3. 295. See note 1. External or Visible Sign of Injury. — See note 2. 296. See note i. C. TOTAL DISABILITY — Total Disability a Eelative Term. — See note 3. 29$. To Transact Any and Every Kind of Business Pertaining to One's Occupation. — See note 3. 299. See note 1. insured was the aggressor and attacked his opponent with a pistol, using at the same time violent language, is not death by accident. Taliaferro v. Travelers' Protective Assoc, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 368. Sting of Insect. — Qmberg v. U. S. Mutual Ace. Assoc. ,~ 10 1 Ky. 305, 72 Am. St. Rep. 413. Overdose of Morphine. — Death caused by an overdose of morphine taken to abate pain is death from an accidental cause. Dezell v. Fidelity, etc,., Co., 176 Mo. 253. In Carnes v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 106 Iowa 281, it is held that death caused by the taking of morphine is death from an accidental cause if deceased took more than he intended ; but it is not death from an accidental cause if he knew how much he was taking, but did not know that that amount would cause death. Rupture of Blood Vessel due to sudden, un- usual and involuntary movement of the body. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Schmaltz, 66 Ark. 588. Compare Feder v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 107 Iowa 538; Niskern v. United Brotherhood, etc., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 364, cited in the next preceding note. Or the rupture of a blood vessel due to a fall, Taylor v. General Ace. Assur. Corp., 208 Pa. St. 439 ; or to being thrown against a chair, Fetter v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 174 Mo. 256, 97 Am. St. Rep. 560. 294. 1. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Randolph, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 754 ; Payne v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 119 Iowa 342; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gehrmann, 96 Md. 634 ; ..Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 74 ; Shevlin v. American Mut. Ace. Assoc, 94 Wis. 180. See Robinson v. U. S. Benevolent Soc, 132 Mich. Cos- 2. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wyness, 107 Ga. 589, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 294; American Aec. Co. v. Carson, 99 Ky. 441, 59 Am. St.. Rep. 473; Campbell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 109 Ky. 661 ; Furbush v. Maryland Casualty Co., 131 Mich. 234; Collins ■0. Fidelity, etc., Co., 63 Mo. App. 253 ; Button v. American Mut. Ace. Assoc, 92 Wis. 83, 53 Am. St. Rep. 900. Insured Intentionally Shot by Another. — Rob- inson v. U. S. Mutual Ace Assoc, 68 Fed. Rep. 825. See also American Ace. Co. v. Carson, 99 Ky. 441, S9 Am. St. Rep. 473. S. Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 289, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 294; Miller v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 836. Construction of Clause in policy making in- surer liable only for death resulting from " bodily injuries * * * through external, violept, end accidental means * * * inde- pendently of all other causes." Hubbard v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 932. 295. 1. See Westmoreland v. Preferred Ace Ins. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 244. 2. See Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Mondy, 18 Colo. App. 395; Stephens v. Railway Offi- cials, etc, Ace. Assoc, 75 Miss. 84. External and Visible Marks. — A clause in a policy which declares that the policy " does not insure against death or disablement * * * from accidents that shall bear no external and visible marks," when fairly con- strued indicates that its purpose was to pro- vide that a case of death or injury should not be regarded as within the policy, unless there was some external or visible evidence which indicated that it was accidental. Menneiley v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 148 N. Y. 596, 51 Am. St. Rep. 716, reversing 72 Hun (N, Y.) 477- 296. 1. Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Mondy, 18 Colo. App. 395. See Root v. London Guar- antee, etc., Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 578; Hors- fall v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 32 Wash. 132, 98 Am. St. Rep. 846. Discoloration of Arm and Shoulder Is a " vis- ible mark upon the body." It need not be a bruise, contusion, laceration, or broken limb, but may be any visible evidence of an internal strain. Thayer v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 68 N. H. 577. 3. Lobdill v. Laboring Men's Mut. Aid Assoc, 69 Minn. 14, 65 Am. St. Rep. 542. Question for Jury. — Whether an injury con- stitutes a total disability is ordinarily a ques- tion for the jury. Grand Lodge, etc. v. Orrell, 109 111. App. 422; Smith v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 62 Kan. 75. Words " Immediately, Continuously, and Wholly Disable " Construed and Cases Reviewed. — See Brendon v. Traders, etc., Ace Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 530. Confined to House. — Where the policy pro- vides that the insured must be totally disabled and confined to the house in order to recover on the policy, the fact that the insured is able to go to the office of the physician in a car does not prevent a recovery on the policy if he is inca- pacitated for work or business. The clause must receive a reasonable interpretation. Mu- tual Ben. Assoc, v. Nancarrow, 18 Colo. App. 274. 298. 3. See McKinley v. Bankers Ace Ins. Co., 106 Iowa 81 ; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Durall, (Ky. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 740; Turner o. Fidelity, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 425; Coad v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 61 Neb. 563; Bylow v. Union Casualty, etc., Co., 72 Vt. 325. 299, 1, See Hohn v. Inter-State Casualty 35 301-306 ACCIDENT INSURANCE. Vol. I. 301. d. Loss of Certain Members of the Body — Feet and Hands. See note i. Loss by Severance. — - See note 2. , » 302. e. Accidents to Insured in Special Occupations — w Description of Occupation. — See note 2. Provisions Against Other or More Hazardous Occupations, bee note O. 303. (2) Occupation Defined— Refers to Profession, Not Acts. — bee note 2. Change of Occupation Question for Jury. — See note 3. 304. (3) Risks Classified by the Company — Injuries Received in More Hazardous Occupation. — See note 2. ,„„,„ 305. /. Injuries to Passengers by Public or Private Convey- ance — Injury Received While Changing Conveyance. — See note I. 306. g. Injuries Received in the Discharge of Duty — Railroad Employees. — See note 2. . 2. Accidents and Injuries Usually Excepted — a. General Rule of CONSTRUCTION — Construed Most Strongly Against Insurer. — See notes 4, 5. Co., 115 Mich. 79; Thayer v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 68 N. H. 577. 301. 1. Supreme Ct. of Honor v. Turner, 99 111. App. 310. One Entire Hand and One Entire Foot. — Where insurer agrees to pay a certain amount in case the insured loses " one entire hand and one entire foot," he is not liable unless both are lost. The loss of one creates no liability. Gentry v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 114, 5 Ohio N. P. 331. 2. Fuller v. Locomotive Engineers' Mut. L., etc., Ins. Assoc, 122 Mich. 552, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 301. Amputation of the Arm a little below the elbow is " the loss of an arm " within the com- mon acceptation of those words. Garcelon v. Commercial Travelers Eastern Ace. Assoc, 184 Mass. 8. 302. 2. Richards v. Travelers' Ins. Co., (S. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. 428. 6. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Back, (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 229; Yancey v. jEtna L. Ins. Co., 108 Ga^ 349; Loesch v. Union Casualty, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 654; Canadian R. Ace. Ins. Co. v. McNevin, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 194. 303. 2. Eaton v. Atlas Ace Ins. Co., 89 Me. 570 ; Thomas v. Masons Fraternal Ace Assoc, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 22 ; Comstock v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 116 Wis. 382. See Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Goddard, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 832. Single Acts Not Change of Occupation — Grocer Injured While Hunting. — Kentucky L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 102 Ky. 512. Barber Injured While Hunting. — Wildey Casualty Co. v. Sheppard, 61 Kan. 351. Bookkeeper Shot While Hunting. — Holiday v. American Mut. Ace Assoc, 103 Iowa 178. Mining Expert Riding on Locomotive. — Ber- liner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 121 Cal. 458. "Undertaker Riding Bicycle for Pleasure. — Baldwin v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 124. Coupling of Cars by Baggageman. — Canadian R. Ace. Ins. Co. u. McNevin, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 194. Banker Operating a Saw to Cut Pieces for Cabinet. — Hess v. Preferred Masonic Mut. Ace Assoc, 112 Mich. ig-6. JJ, Fox v. Mas,gn.s.' Fraternal Aw;. Assoc., 96 $ Wis. 390. See Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 386. Single Acts Not Change of Occupation. — Hoff- man v. Standard L., etc., Co., 127 N. Car. 337. 304. 2. What Constitutes Change of Occu- pation. — The defense of change of occupation is not maintainable where a person insured as a lawyer was drowned while en route to Alaska for the purpose of prospecting for mines. ^Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Frierson, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 56. 305. 1. Riding Construed. — Standing on the platform of a railroad car is not riding " in " a passenger conveyance within the mean- ing of a policy providing that double the sum specified should be paid, if the insured should be injured " while riding as a passenger in a passenger conveyance." /Etna L. Ins. Co. u. Vandecar, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 282, Thayer, J., dissenting. See also Van Bokkelen v. Trav- elers Ins. Co., 34 N. Y. App. Div. 399, affirmed 167 N. Y. 590. But a person entering a public conveyance after having got upon the step is " riding as a passenger in a public conveyance " even though the conveyance has not moved. Powis v. On- tario Ace Ins. Co., 1 Ont. L. Rep. 54. 306. 2. See Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Howell, 13 Ind. App. 519. A Shock Caused by Fright sustained by in- sured in the discharge of his duty, and incapaci- tating him from employment, is an accident within the meaning of a policy which provides for a weekly indemnity in case insured is " in- capacitated from employment by reason of acci- dent sustained in the discharge of his duty." Pugh v. London, etc., R. Co., (1896) 2 Q. B. 248, 65 L. J. Q. B. 521. 4. Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Mondy, 18 Colo. App. 39s ; Terwilliger v. National Ma- sonic Ace Assoc, 197 111. 9, reversing 98 111. App. 237; Columbia Paper Stock Co. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 104 Mo. App. 157; Marshall v. Com- mercial Travelers Mut. Ace. Assoc, 170 N. Y. 434; Brendon v. Traders', etc., Ace Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 530; Coles v. New York Casualty Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 41 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hudgins, 97 Tex. 124; Grimes v. Fidelity, etc., Co., (Te^, Civ, App, joq;j) 7^ S, W, Rep. Su, Vol. I. A CCIDENT INS URA NCE. 306-30S 306. b. Voluntary Exposure to Unnecessary Danger — (i) In General — Usual Form of Modern Policy. — See note 6. 307. Effect of Negligence Where Such Provision Not Inserted. — See note I. (2) What Is a Voluntary Exposure — Implies Conscious Intentional Exposure. — See notes 5, 6. 308. See notes 1,2, 3, 4. The Rule Applies as Well to Benefit Associations as to Ordinary Companies — United States. — Commercial Travelers' Mut. Ace. Assoc, v. Ful- ton, 79 Fed. Rep. 423 ; Lowenstein v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 474. California. — Berliner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 121 Cal. 458. Georgia. — Yancey v. ./Etna L. Ins. Co., 108 Ga. 349- Illinois. — Travelers Ins. Co. v. Dunlap, 1 60 111. 642; Globe Ace. Ins. Co. v. Gerisch, 163 111. 625, reversing 61 111. App. 140. Indiana. — Conboy v. Railway Officials, etc., Ace. Assoc, 17 Ind. App. 62. Iowa. — Matthes v. Imperial Ace. Assoc, no Iowa 222. Michigan. — Grand Rapids Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., in Mich. 148. Minnesota. — Cook v. Benefit League, 76 Minn. 382. Mississippi. — Stephens v. Railway Officials', etc., Ace. Assoc, 75 Miss. 84. New York. — Meechan v. Traders, etc, Ace. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 158. Texas. — /Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 74. Wisconsin. — Button v. American Mut. Ace. Assoc, 92 Wis. 83, S3 Am. St. Rep. 900. Canada. — Shera v. Ocean Ace, etc., Corp., 32 Ont. 411. 3©6. 6. Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 253 ; Woodmen Ace. Assoc, v. Pratt, 62 Neb. 673, 89 Am. St. Rep. 777 ; Shera v. Ocean Ace, etc., Corp., 32 Ont. 411. Forfeiture Clause Construed. — See Martin v. Manufacturers Ace. Indemnity Co., 151 N. Y. 6. Standard Ins. Co. v. Langston, 60 Ark. 381. 307. 1. Commercial Travelers Mut. Ace. Assoc, v. Springsteen, 23 Ind. App. 657 ; Payne v. Fraternal Ace Assoc, 119 Iowa 342; Thomas v. Masons' Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 22; Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 598, 60 Am. St. Rep. 873, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 307 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138. 5. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 754; Ashenfelter v. Em- ployers' Liability Assur. Corp., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 682 ; North American Ace. Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 395; De Loy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Pa. St. 1 ; Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 591, 60 Am. St. Rep. 873 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Cham- bers, 93 Va. 138, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 307. 6. Travelers' Protective Assoc, v. Small, 115 Ga. 455; Payne v. Fraternal Ace Assoc, 119 Iowa 342. See Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. God- dard, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 832. 308. 1. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Anderson, 5 Kan. App. 18; /Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 74. 2. Preferred Ace Ins. Co. v. Muir, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 926; U. S. Mutual Ace Assoc, v. Hubbell, 56 Ohio St. 516; Jamison v. Continental Casualty Co., 104 Mo. App. 306. See Shevlin v. American Mut. Ace Assoc, 94 Wis. 180. Carelessly Stepping on Railroad Track with- out noticing approaching train is not a " vol- untary exposure." Lehman v. Great Eastern Casualty, etc., Co., 7 N. Y. App. Div. 424, affirmed 158 N. Y. 689. 3. United States. — Traders', etc., Ace. Co. v. Wagley, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 457; Trav- elers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 754 ; Ashenfelter v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 682. Indiana. — Conboy v. Railway Officials', etc.. Ace. Assoc, (Ind. App. 1896) 43 N. E. Rep. 1017. New York. — Keeffe v. National Ace Soe, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 392 ; Johanns v. National Ace Soc, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 104. Tennessee. — Union Casualty, etc. Co. v. Har- roll, 98 Tenn. 591, 60 Am. St. Rep. 873. Virginia. — Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 308. 4. Circumstances Which Show Voluntary Ex- posure — Boarding Moving Cars. — Small v. Travelers Protective Assoc, 118 Ga. 900. Crossing Tracks in Railroad Yard for Pur- pose of Taking Train. — Glass v. Masons' Fra- ternal Ace Assoc, 112 Fed. Rep. 495. Placing Wrist in Front of Nozzle of Gun Which Is Loaded and Cocked. — Sargent v. Central Ace Ins. Co., 112 Wis. 29. Going on Platform of Car Approaching Sta- tion. — • Overbeck v. Travelers Ins. Co., 94 Mo. App. 453- Sitting on Railroad Track. — Metropolitan Ace Assoc v. Taylor, 71 111. App. 132, affirmed 172 111. 511. But see Fidelity, etc, Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138. Crossing Track Between Cars of Freight Train About to Move. — Willard v. Masonic Equitable Ace. Assoc, 169 Mass. 288. Steeplechase riding. — Smith v. ..Etna L. Ins. Co., 185 Mass. 74. Circumstances Which Do Not Show Voluntary Exposure — Getting Pigeons in Cupola of Barn. — Matthes v. Imperial Ace Assoc, no Iowa 222. Insured Killed While Fighting. — Campbell v- Fidelity, etc, Co., 109 Ky. 661. Boarding Slowly-Moving Street Car. — Jo- hanns v. National Ace Soe, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 104. Scaling Bank with Loaded Gun While Hunt- ing. — Cornwell v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 6 N. Dak. 201, 66 Am. St. Rep. 601. 37 309-314 ACCIDENT INSURANCE. Vol. I. 309. Voluntary Act and Voluntary Exposure Distinguished. — See note I. 310. c. Want of Due Diligence. — See note i. 311. d. Walking or Being on Railroad. — See note 4. 312. See notes 1, 2. Meaning of Roadbed. — See note 4. e. Riding on Platform of or Getting On or Off a Railroad Car. — See note 5. _ 313. /. Noncompliance with Rules and Regulations of Carrier or Corporation. — See note 3. g. Suicide or Self-inflicted Injuries — Refers to voluntary Conscious Act. — See note 6. 314. h. Taking Poison. — See note 3. Coupling Cars. — It is not " voluntary ex- posure to unnecessary danger " for a baggage- man to couple cars, he being accustomed to such work. Canadian R. Ace. Ins. Co. v. McNevin, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 194. 309. 1. Collins v. Bankers Ace. Ins. Co., 96 Iowa 216 ; Payne o. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 119 Iowa 342; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Clark, 109 Ky. 350, 95 Am. St. Rep. 374; Collins v. Fidel- ity, etc., Co., 63 Mo. App. 253 ; Cornwell v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 6 N. Dak. 201, 66 Am. St. Rep. 601, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 309; De Loy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Pa. St. 1. 310. 1. Payne v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 119 Iowa 342, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 310; Kentucky L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 102 Ky. 512. 311. 4. See Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Howell, 13 Ind. App, 519. 312. 1. Weinschenk v. .-Etna L. Ins. Co., 183 Mass. 312. "Walking" on Roadbed includes using the roadbed as and for a footpath, and even stop- ping on it in the course of such use — as to tie a shoe, talk with another, or rest for a time, standing or sitting, but intending to pursue the journey thereon when the occasion for such suspension is passed. Metropolitan Ace Assoc. v. Taylor, 71 111. App. 132, affirmed 172 111. 511. 2. Traders', etc., Ace. Co. v. Wagley, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 457 ; Payne v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 119 Iowa 342; Keene v. New England Mut. Ace. Assoc, 164 Mass. 170. 4. Entire Right of Way is not included within the term " roadbed," nor is that part of it which is leveled off and constructed for the purpose of putting in another track. De Loy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Pa. St. 1. 6. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Randolph, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 754 ; Preferred Ace. Ins. Co. v. Muir, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 926; Berliner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 121 Cal. 458; Huston v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 66 Ohio St. 246. Riding 'in a Street Car Includes Alighting There- from. — King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 101 Ga. 64, 65 Am. St Rep. 288. Riding on Platform. — Where the insured is on the car platform for a temporary and neces- sary purpose, he is not riding on the plat- form within the meaning of an exception in an insurance policy. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. ■u. Thornton, (C. C. A.) too Fed. Rep. 582. Entering Moving Conveyance. — A provision exempting insurer from liability, if insured was 3S injured while entering a moving conveyance using steam, does not apply where insured is injured while attempting to board a train which is standing still when the attempt is first made, but moves while the attempt is still being made, Terwilliger v. National Masonic Ace. Assoc, 197 111. 9, reversing 98 111. App. 237. See Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Brookover, 71 Ark. 123. 313. 3. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 754. 6. See Berger v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 241. Voluntarily Taking Carbolic Acid to Frighten Wife into Giving Money, but without intent to cause death, is not suicide within the meaning of a suicide clause in a policy. Courtemanche v. Supreme Ct., (Mich. 1904; 98 N. W. Rep. 749- 314. 3. Accidental Poisoning Not Within Exception. — Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 290, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 314; McGlother v. Provident Mut. Ace. Co., (C. C. A.) 89 Fed. Rep. 685; Early v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 113 Mich. 58, 67 Am. St. Rep. 445. See Kasten v. Interstate Casualty Co., 99 Wis. 73. Accidental Poisoning Within Exception. — Pre- ferred Ace. Ins. Co. v. Robinson, (Fla. 1903) 33 So. Rep. 1005 ; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Dunlap, 160 111. 642 ; Metropolitan Ace Assoc, v . Froi- land, 161 111. 30, affirming 59 111. App. 522; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Waterman, 161 111. 632, affirming 59 111. App. 297. " Voluntary or Involuntary Taking of Poison." — A clause in a policy which excepts accident or death resulting wholly or partially from the voluntary or involuntary taking of poison, in- cludes the accidental taking of an overdose of a poisonous medicine. Kennedy v. Mtaa. L. Ins. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 509.. " Poison in Any Form or Manner." — Death from blood poisoning due to the sting of an insect is not comprehended within the pro- visions of a policy excepting death resulting from " poison in any form or manner " or " contact with poisonous substances." Omberg v. U. S. Mutual Ace. Assoc, 101 Ky. 305, 72 Am. St. Rep. 413. "Contact with Poisonous Substance." — Under a policy exempting insurer from liability for " injuries fatal or otherwise resulting directly or indirectly from or in any wise contributed, to by * * * poison, in any form or manner, or contact with poisonous substances," the in- surer is not liable for injuries caused by car- Vol. I. ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 315-322 315. i. Inhalation of Gas. — See note 4. j. DEATH CAUSED BY DISEASE — Where Disease Not Proximate Cause of Death. — See note 5. 317. See note 2. Exceptions to Special Diseases. — See notes 1 , 2. k. Surgical Operation or Medical Treatment. — See note 4. /. Intoxication. — See note 5. Evidence of Intoxication. — See note 5- m. Lifting or Over-exertion. — See note 6. o. Violation of Law. — See note 8. Causal Connection Between Violation and Injury. — See note I . While Violating the Law. — See note ! . q. Injuries Received While Fighting. — See note 4. r. INTENTIONAL INJURIES — Intentional Injury Inflioted by Another.— 318. 319. 330. 331. 323. See notes 2, 4. bolic acid thrown by a woman in the face of the insured. Meehan v. Traders, etc., Ace. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 158. 315. 4. Lowenstein v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 474. Death Arising from Anything Accidentally In- haled has reference to cases where something has been voluntarily and intentionally, although mistakenly, inhaled, and does not apply to cases where death results from involuntarily and ac- cidentally breathing escaped illuminating gas. Menneiley v. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp., 148 N. Y. 596, 51 Am. St. Rep. 716, reversing 72 Hun (N. Y.) 477. 5, Western Commercial Travelers' Assoc, v. Smith, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 401 ; Bailey v. Interstate Casualty Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 127 [affirmed 158 N. Y. 723], citing 1 Am. and Eng. En cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 315 ; -Etna L. Ins. Co. v . Hicks, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 74. See Mardorf v. Accident Ins. Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 584, 72 L. J. K. B. 362; Commercial Travelers' Mut. Ace Assoc, v. Fulton, (C. C. A.) 79 Fed. Rep. 423 ; Preferred Ace. Ins. Co. v. Muir, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 926. Stipulation Excepting Death Caused by Disease. — Mtns, L. Ins. Co. v. Dorney, 68 Ohio St. 151. 317. 2. Thornton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 126, 94 Am. St. Rep. 99, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 315 et seq.; Carr v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 100 Mo. App. 602. 31§. 1. Hernia. — Atlanta Ace. Assoc, v. Alexander, 104 Ga. 709, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 318; Thornton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 126, 94 Am. St. Rep. 99. citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 318; Summers v. Fidelity Mut. Aid Assoc, 84 Mo. App. 60s ; Miner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 289. 2. Accident Caused by Fits or Vertigo. — Meyer v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 96 Iowa 378. 4. See Westmoreland T>. Preferred Ace. Ins. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 244. 5. Pyne v. Mutual Ace. Co., 2 Dauphin Co. Rep. (Pa.) no. See Campbell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 109 Ky. 661 ; Flint v. Travelers' Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 43 S. W. Rep. 1079. 319. 5. Johanns v. National Ace. Soc, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 104; De Van v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Ace. Assoc, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 250, affirmed 157 N. Y. 690. 6. See Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Schmaltz, 66 Ark. 588 ; Metropolitan Ace. Assoc, v. Bris- tol, 69 111. App. 492 ; Rustin v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 58 Neb. 792, 76 Am. St. Rep. 136; Rose v. Commercial Mut. Ace. Co., 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 394. 8. Lehman v. Great Eastern Casualty, etc., Co., 7 N. Y. App. Div. 424, affirmed 158 N. Y. 689. Biding Bicycle to Funeral on Sunday is no vio- lation of statute relating to Lord's Day. Eaton v Atlas Ace. Ins. Co., 89 Me. 570. 320. 1. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Fraser, (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 70S; Cornwell v. Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 6 N. Dak. 201, 66 Am. St. Rep. 601. Natural and Reasonable Consequence of Violat- ing Law Must Be to Increase Risk. — Conboy v. Railway Officials, etc., Ace. Assoc, (Ind. App. 1896) 43 N. E. Rep. 1017. 321. 1. Contra. — Prudential Ins. Co. v. Haley, 91 111. App. 370 [.affirmed 189 111. 317], citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 321, and disapproving Griffin v. Western Mut. Benev. Assoc, 20 Neb. 620, 57 Am. Rep. 848. 4, Coles f. New York Casualty Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 41. 322. 2. Orr v. Travelers Ins. Co., 120 Ala. 647 ; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wyness, 107 Ga. 584 ; Railway Officials, etc., Ace Assoc, v. Mc- Cabe, 61 111. App. 565 ; Matson v. Travellers Ins. Co., 93 Me. 469 ; Ging v. Travelers Ins. Co., 74 Minn, 505 ; Railway Officials, etc., Ace. Assoc, v. Drummond, 56 Neb. 235 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Smith, 31 Tex. Civ. App. in; Grimes v. Fidelity, etc., Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 811. Where a policy insuring against death or injury by " external, violent, or accidental means " further provides that it shall not " ex- tend to or cover intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person," a recovery may be had where the insured was killed by a third person without any provocation on the part of the insured. The exception in the policy refers only to injuries not resulting in death. American Ace. Co. v. Carson, 99 Ky. 441, 59 Am. St. Rep. 473, distinguishing Hutch- craft v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 87 Ky. 300, 12 Am. St. Rep. 484- Where the Insured WaB Murdered his refh- 39 333-335 ACCIDENT INSURANCE. Vol. I. 333. Death Inflicted by Insane Person. — See note 5. 333. Intentional Injuries Inflicted by Insured. — See note I. ,.■*♦■ 3. Stipulations as to Notice and Preliminary Proof, Time of Instituting Suit, Arbitration — a. Notice and Proof of Injury — (i) In General Condition Precedent, — See note 2. When Compliance Impossible. — See note 3- Notice in Case of Disability — No Disablement at the Time, but Death Ensues. — See note 5. Immediate Notice. — See note 6. 334. And What Is a Reasonable Time. — See note I . Examination of Body. — See note 2. 335. (2) Waiver — Failure to Give Notice. — See note 3. Refusal of Agent to Recognize Claim. — See not.e 4. ' b. Time of Instituting Suit. ~- See note 7. resentative cannot recover on a policy excepting death resulting from intentional injuries. Trav- elers' Protective Assoc, v. Langholz, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 60 ; Brown v. U. S. Casualty Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 38; Johnson v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 314. 322. 4. Butero v. Travelers' Ace. Ins. Co., 96 Wis. 536, 65 Am. St. Rep. 61. 5. Berger v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 241 ; Corley v. Travelers' Protective Assoc, (C. C. A.) 105 Fed. Rep. 854; Stevens v. Continental Casualty Co., 12 N. Dak. 463. 323. 1. See Button v. American Mut. Ace. Assoc, 92 Wis. 83, 53 Am. St. Rep. 900. 2. In re Williams, etc., Ace. Ins. Co., 51 W. R. 222 ; Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Taylor, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 104; London Guaran- tee, etc., Co. v. Siwy, (Ind. App. 1903) 66 N. E. Rep. 481 ; Simons v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 102 Iowa 267; Woodmen Ace. Assoc, v. Pratt, 62 Neb. 673, 89 Am. St. Rep. 777 ; Hagadorn v. Masonic Equitable Ace. Assoc, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 321 ; Braymer v. Commercial Mut. Ace. Co., 199 Pa. St. 259 ; Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee, etc, Co. 100 Wis. 378. See Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 253; Shera v. Ocean Ace, etc, Corp., 32 Ont. 411. Sufficiency of Particulars. — ^Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Milward, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 364; Root v. London Guarantee, etc., Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 578. 3. Peele v. Provident Fund Soc, 147 Ind. 543, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 323 ; Mandell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 170 Mass. 173; Woodmen Ace. Assoc, v. Pratt, 62 Neb. 673, 89 Am. St. Rep. 777 ; Comstock v. Fraternal Ace Assoc, 116 Wis. 382. 5. Odd Fellows Fraternal Ace Assoc v. Earl, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 16; Rorick v. Railway Officials', etc, Ace. Assoc, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep: 63. See Phillips v. U. S. Benevolent Soc, 120 Mich. 142. 6. " Immediate " Notice — Colorado. — Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Mondy, 18 Colo. App. 395. Illinois. — Sun Ace Assoc, v. Olson, 59 111. App. 217; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Weise, 80 111. App. 499- Indiana. — Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Bran- ham, (Ind. App. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 174. Massachusetts. — Smith, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Mass. 357; National Constr. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 176 Mass. 121 ; Rooney v. Maryland Casualty Co., 184 Mass. 26. Missouri. — Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 253 ; Hayes v. Continental Casualty Co., 98 Mo. App. 410; Columbia Paper Stock Co. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 104 Mo. App. 157. New Hampshire. — Ward v. Maryland Casu- alty Co., 71 N. H. 262, 93 Am. St. Rep. 514. New York. — Ewing v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Ace. Assoc, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 241, affirmed 170 N. Y. S90 ; Woolverton v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 96 N. Y. App. Div. 275. Ohio. — Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Myers, 62 Ohio St. 529 ; Crane v . Standard L., etc, Ins. Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 118, 3 Ohio N. P. 318. Pennsylvania. — Van Eman v. Fidelity, etc, Co., 201 Pa. St. 537. Washington. — Deer Trail Consol. Min. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., (Wash. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 135. Wisconsin. — Foster v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 99 Wis. 447 ; Underwood Veneer Co. v. London Guarantee, etc., Co., 100 Wis. 378. 324. 1. When Question for Jury and When for Court. — American Ace. Co. v. Card, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 504, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 154; Horsfall v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 32 Wash. 132, 98 Am. St. Rep. 846. 2. Sudduth v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 822 ; Ewing v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Ace Assoc, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 241, affirmed 170 N. Y. 590; Root v. London Guarantee, etc., Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 578. 325. 3. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Bran- ham, (Ind. App. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 174; National Masonic Ace. Assoc, v. McBride, 162 Ind. 379 ; Moore v. Wildey Casualty Co., 176 Mass. 418 ; Rooney v. Maryland Casualty Co., 184 Mass. 26 ; Foster v. Fidelity, etc, Co., 99 Wis. 447. See Dezell v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 176 Mo. 253. 4. Metropolitan Ace Assoc, v. Froiland, 161 111. 30, affirming 59 111. App. 522 ; Hayes v. Continental Casualty Co., 98 Mo. App. 410. See Crenshaw v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 71 Mo. App. 42. Eefusal Must Be Within Time provided for the giving of the notice and proof in order to constitute a waiver. Employer's Liability Assur. Corp. u. Rochelle, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 232. 7. Denison v. Masons Fraternal Ace. Assoc, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 294. 40 Vol. I. ACCIDENT INSURANCE — ACCION. 337-333 337. VI. Pkoximate Cause. — See note 4. 338. VII. Agents — 2. Power of Agent to Waive Conditions and Forfeitures. — See note 4. 339. 3. Knowledge of Agent Imputed to Insurer. — See note 3. 330. VIII. Evidence — 1. Proof of Death by Violent, External, and Acci- dental Means. — See note 1 . Direct and Positive Proof. — See note 2. 331. Declarations of the Insured as to Accident and Physical Condition. — See note I. Evidence of Physician. — See note 4. 2. Presumptions — Against Suicide. — See notes 5, 6. 333. Against Intentional Injury. — See note I. 3. Establishing Proviso Limiting the Insurer's Liability. — See note 2. IX. Amount of Recovery — Money Value of Time. — See note 4. 333. [ACCION. — See note 30.] Provision as to Time Waived. — See Turner v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 112 Mich. 425. 327. 4. Meyer v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 96 Iowa 378. Special Provision inserted in policy that acci- dent must be the proximate and sole cause of death. See Hubbard v. Mutual Ace. Assoc, 98 Fed. Rep. 930 ; Martin v; Manufacturers Ace. Indemnity Co., 151 N. Y. 94. 328. 4. No Agent Has Power to Waive Con- dition, however, if the policy states that he shall not. Thornton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 121, 94 A.n. St. Rep. 99. 329. 3. Knowledge of Agent as to Other In- surance. — Herbert v. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 225. 330. 1. Westmoreland v. Preferred Ace. Ins. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 244 ; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wyness, 107 Ga. 584; Furbush v. Maryland Casualty Co., 133 Mich. 479; Summers v. Fidelity Mut. Aid Assoc, 84 Mo. App. 605. See .Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Vandecar, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 282 ; Laessig v. Travelers' Pro- tective Assoc, 169 Mo. 272. 2. See Laessig v. Travelers' Protective Assoc, 169 Mo. 272. 331. 1. Union Casualty, etc, Co. v. Mondy, 18 Colo. App. 395. See Van Eman v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 201 Pa. St. 537. Declarations Made to Physician Admissible, — Omberg v. U. S. Mutual Ace. Assoc, 10 1 Ky. 305, 72 Am. St. Rep. 413. 4. Opinions of Physician based upon facts not stated, as to whether death was occasioned by injuries received, held not admissible. Foster v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 99 Wis. 447. 5. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Thornton, (C. C. A.) 100 Fed. Rep. 582 ; Star Ace Co. v. Sibley, 57 111. App. 315; Knights Templars, etc., L. Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, no 111. App. 648, affirmed 209 111. 550 ; Carnes v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 106 Iowa 281, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 331 ; .Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Milward, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 364; Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Goddard, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 832; Furbush v. Maryland Casualty Co., 131 Mich. 234 ; Laessig v. Travelers' Protective Assoc, 169 Mo. 272 ; De Van v. Commercial Travelers' Mut. Ace. Assoc, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 256, affirmed 157 N. Y. 690. 6. Presumption Against Suicide. — Furbush v. Maryland Casualty Co., 133 Mich. 479. See Fowlie v. Ocean Ace, etc., Corp., 4 Ont. L. Rep. 146, affirmed 33 Can. Sup. Ct. 253. 332. 1. Stevens v. Continental Casualty Co., 12 N. Dak. 463 ; Butero v. Travelers' Ace Ins. Co., 96 Wis. 536, 65 Am. St. Rep. 61. 2, United States. — Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Thornton, (C. C. A.) 100 Fed. Rep. 582 ; Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Back, (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 229. Georgia. — Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wyness, 107 Ga. 590, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 332 ; Thornton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 121, 94 Am. St. Rep. 99. Iowa. — Carnes v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc, 106 Iowa 281 ; Payne v. Fraternal Ace Assoc, 119 Iowa 342. Kentucky. — .Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Milward, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 364. Massachusetts. — Weinschenk v. .Etna L. Ins. Co., 183 Mass. 312. Michigan. — Hess v. Preferred Masonic Mut. Ace Assoc, 112 Mich. 196. Missouri. — Hester v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 69 Mo. App. 186; Crenshaw v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 71 Mo. App. 42; Jamison v. Continental Casualty Co., 104 Mo. App. 306. Nebraska. — Railway Officials, etc., Ace Assoc v. Drummond, 56 Neb. 235. New York. — Bailey v. Interstate Casualty Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 130 [affirmed 158 N. Y. 723], citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 332. North Dakota. — Stevens v. Continental Casualty Co., 12 N. Dak. 463. Ohio. — Interstate Casualty Co. v. Bird, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec 211. Texas. — Employer's Liability Assur. Corp. v. Rochelle, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 232. Canada. — Canadian R. Ace Ins. Co. v. Mc- Nevin, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 194. 4. Wages Allowed During Time Insured Was Incapacitated, — Globe Ace Ins. Co. v. Helwig, 13 Ind. App. 539. 333. 3a. The Word "Accion " in the Spanish Law of Property has been denned as " the right to demand anything; and the method of judicial procedure which we have for the recovery of that which is ours, or which another owes us." The result is that all choses in action owned by either of the consorts before marriage remain the separate property of such consort. Welder ■u. Lambert, 91 Tex. 510. 41 ACCOMMODATION PAPER. By O. D. Estee. 335. I. Definitions — 1. Accommodation Paper. — See note i. 336. 2. Accommodation Party. — See notes 2, 3. 337; II. Nature and Essentials of Accommodation Paper — 2. Con- sideration — a. GENERAL PRINCIPLES — Accommodation Party Holding Security or Interested in Proceeds. — See note I. Credit to Party Accommodated as Consideration. — See note 3. Consideration for Accommodation Indorser After Delivery. — See note 4. 338. b. CROSS BILLS OR NOTES — Not Accommodation Paper. — See note I. 339. 3. Party Accommodated — who is — incidental Benefit. — See note 1. Need Not Be Party to Instrument. — See note 2. 340. 4. Inception of the Contract — a. Inoperative until Negotiated. — See note 3. b. Revocation — (i) Generally. — See note 4. 341. (2) By Death. — See notes 4, 5. 343. 6. Parol Evidence to Prove Character of Instrument. — See notes 1, 2. 345. III. Accommodation Paper of Particular Parties — 1. Partners — One Partner Has No Power to Issue. — See note 8. 348. 2. Corporations — No Implied Power to Execute Accommodation Paper. — See 3.4- his promissory note in order to enable A to pay the debt. It was held that C loaned his credit to A, and that B was not the -party accommo- dated. Thorn v. Kibbee, 62 N. J. L. 753. 2. Rea v. McDonald, 68 Minn. 187. 340. 3. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 340. 4. Revocable by Accommodation Party until Negotiated. — Markowitz v. Greenwall Theatri- cal Circuit Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 74- 341. 4. Edwards v. McClave, 55 N. J. Eq. 151, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 341. 5. Death of Accommodation Indorser Prevents Recovery When Holders Knew of the Accommoda- tion. — Edwards v. McClave, 55 N. J. Eq. 151, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 341- 343. 1. Hoffman v. Habighorst, 38 Oregon 261, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 343; Pantal v. Spears, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 102, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 343 ; Faulkner v. Thomas, 48 W. Va. 148, quot- ing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 343- To Show Who Is the Accommodation Party. — Bliss v. Plummer, 103 Mich. 181. 2. Hitchcock v. Frackelton, 116 Mich. 487, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 343; Hoffman v. Habighorst, 38 Oregon 261, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed ) 343- 345. 8. Talmage v. Millikin, 119 Ala. 40- Smith v. Weston, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 25. What Amounts to Notice of Character of Paper — Harrington v. Baker, 173 Mass. 488. 348. 2. Lyon v. Sioux City First Nat notes 2, 335. 1. United States. — Greenway v. Wil- liam D. Orthwein Grain Co., (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 536. Illinois. — Bouton v. Cameron, 99 111. App. 600. Minnesota- — Rea v. McDonald, 68 Minn. 187. Missouri. — Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brady, 165 Mo. 197, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 335. Nebraska. — Peoria Mfg. Co. v. Huff, 45 Neb. 7. Pennsylvania. — Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 543, affirmed 190 Pa. St. 585. Texas. — Vitkovitch v. Kleinecke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 544. 336. 2. Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. S. A Benefit Accruing to the Person Accommo- dated is a sufficient consideration to sustain the liability of the accommodation maker or in- dorser. St. Cloud First Nat. Bank v. Lang, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 700. 337. 1. Farley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 337. 3. Maffat v. Greene, 149 Mo. 48. See also Creelman v. Stewart, 28 Nova Scotia 185. 4. Accommodation Maker Signing After Execu- tion and Delivery, — See Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 63 Neb. 801, 93 Am. St. Rep. 484. 338. 1. State Bank v. Hayes, 16 S. Dak. 365, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 338 ; Farley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 338. Note Exchanged Proving Worthless. — Farber v. National Forge, etc., Co., 140 Ind. 54. 339. 1. Mere Incidental Benefit. — A was indebted to B, and B requested C to give A 42 Vol I. ACCOMMODA TION PAPER. 340-36O 349. Bona Fide Purchaser. — See note I. Notice of Accommodation Character. — See note 2. 350. 4. Married Women. — See notes 2, 3. IV. Eights and Liabilities of Parties to Accommodation Papeb — 1. General Obligations of Parties — Accommodation Party. — See note 5. 351. 2. Position of Party Accommodated — No Bight of Action. —See notes 1, 2. 3. Rights of Accommodation Party After Payment — a. Against Party Accommodated — (i) Indemnity — Generally. — See note 4. 356. 4. Successive Accommodation Parties — a. Rights and Liabilities GENERALLY — Liable in Order of Names. — See notes 2, 3. 357. b. When Cosureties — Contribution. — See note 3. 35$. See note 3. 360. 5. Holders of Accommodation Paper — a. Rights of Bona Fide HOLDERS — (1) General Statement. — See note 5. (2) Transferee Before Maturity — (a) Generally. — See note 6. Bank, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 120 ; Steiner v. Steiner Land, etc., Co., 120 Ala. 128 ; Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Southern Banking, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 573, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 348 ; Pick v. Ellinger, 66 111. App. 570 ; Bacon v. Farmers' Bank, 79 Mo. App. 411, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 348. Estoppel. — Where all the stockholders and directors assent and the rights of creditors are not involved, a private corporation is estopped from asserting that its act in issuing accommo- dation paper is ultra vires. Murphy, v. Arkan- sas, etc., Land, etc., Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 723. 348. 3. Bacon v. Farmers' Bank, 79 Mo. App. 411, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 348. See also Oppenrieim v. Simon Reigel Cigar Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 355. 4. Steiner v. Steiner Land, etc., Co., 120 Ala. 128; American Trust, etc., Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129 ; Bacon v. Farmers' Bank, 79 Mo. App. 411, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 348 ; Pelton v. Spider Lake Saw- mill, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 569, 98 Am. St. Rep. 946. Power to Execute Business Paper Does Not Imply Power to Execute Accommodation Paper. — Usher v. Raymond Skate Co., 163 Mass. 1. 349. 1. Florence R., etc., Co. v. Chase Nat. Bank, 106 Ala. 364; Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Southern Banking, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 573, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 349 ; Pick v. Ellinger, 66 111. App. 570 ; American Trust, etc., Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 349. 2. Pelton v. Spider Lake Sawmill, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 569, 98 Am. St. Rep. 946. 350. 2. John C. Groub Co. v. Smith, 31 Ind. App. 685. 3. Vliet v. Eastburn, 64 N. J. L. 627. See also the title Separate Property of Married Women. 5. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 350. 351. 1. Israel v. Gale, (C. C. A.) 77 Fed. Rep. 532 ; Levy, etc., Mule Co. v. Kauffman, (C C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 170; Greenway v. William D. Orthwein Grain Co., (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 536 ; Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brady, 165 Mo. 197; Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 63 Neb. 801, 93 Am. St. Rep. 484; Woodward v. Bixby, 68 N. H. 219; Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 543, affirmed 190 Pa. St. 585. 2. Chicago Title, etc., Co. V. Brady, 165 Mo. 197, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 351. See also the title Bills of Ex- change and Promissory Notes, 196. 2. 4. Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 543, affirmed 190 Pa. St. 585. 356. 2. Moynihan v. McKeon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 343, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 356. 3. Moore 1). Cushing, 162 Mass. 594, 44 Am. St. Rep. 393; Lewis v. Monahan, 173 Mass. 122; Maffat v. Greene, 149 Mo. 48; Moynihan v. McKeon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 343, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 356. A Prior Accommodation Indorser who is com- pelled to meet the obligation has no recourse against subsequent accommodation indorsers. Poisson v. Bourgeois, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 94. Right to Collateral Security. — An accommo- dation indorser of a note, having paid it, may sue the accommodation maker without first exhausting collateral securities received from the accommodated party, and it is immaterial that such indorser lives in a different state from the maker. Such accommodation maker can obtain the benefit of the collateral security only by subrogation after payment of the note. Maffat v. Greene, 149 Mo. 48. 357. 3. Hanish v. Kennedy, 106 Mich. 455 ; Moynihan v. McKeon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 343, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 357. Compare In re Boutin, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 186. 358. 3. English Bule. — Steacy v. Stayner, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 684, discussing Macdonald v. Whitfield, 8 App. Cas. 733. 360. 5. Rea v. McDonald, 68 Minn. 187, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 360 ; Metropolitan Printing Co. v. Springer, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 376. 6. United States. — Murphy v. Arkansas, etc., Land, etc., Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 723, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 360; 43 363-374 A CCOMMODA TION PAPER. Vol. I. 362. (b) Contrast with Business Paper. — See note 2. (3) Transferee After Maturity — (b) Purchaser from Holder for Talue. — See note 4. 363. See note 2. 364. (c)* Transferee from Accommodated Party After Maturity — M. United States Rule — Cannot Enforce Instrument. — See note 2. 365. b. Who Is Bona Fide Holder — (2) Pledgee — (a) For Antecedent Debt. — See note 3. 367. c. When Chargeable with Notice of Accommodation Char- acter OF INSTRUMENT — Indorsed Note in Hands of Maker. — See note 3. 369. d. BURDEN OF PROOF — Paper Fraudulently Circulated. — See note I. e. Amount of Recovery Against Accommodation Acceptor or Maker — Pledgees. — See note 5. 371. V. Accommodation Party as Surety — 1. As Between the Party Accommodated and the Accommodation Party — b. Subrogation to Credit- or's Securities. — See note 3. 374. c. Subrogation to Defenses Against Holder — set-off. — See note 2. 2. As to Third Parties — a. Holders Without Notice. — See note 3. Israel v. Gale, 45 U. S. App. 219, 77 Fed. Rep. 532 ; Greenway v. William D. Orthwein Grain Co., (C. C A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 536; Levy, etc., Mule Co. v. Kauffman, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 170. .Alabama. — Steiner v. Jeffries, 118 Ala. 573. Arkansas. — Evans v . Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 360. Delaware. — Maher v. Moore, (Del. 1898) 42 Atl. Rep. 721. District of Columbia. — Willard v. Crook, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 237. Georgia. — Mayer v. Thomas, 97 Ga. 772. Iowa. — Bankers Iowa State Bank v. Mason Hand Lathe Co., 121 Iowa 570. Kentucky. — Moreland v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 97 Ky. 211. Maryland. — Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136; Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. Minnesota. — Rea v. McDonald, 68 Minn. 187, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 360; St. Cloud First Nat. Bank v. Lang, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 700. Missouri. — Maffat v. Greene, 149 Mo. 48. Nebraska. — Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 63 Neb. 801, 93 Am. St. Rep. 484. New Hampshire. — Woodward v. Bixby, 68 N. H. 219. New Jersey. — Honeyman v. Van Nest, 4 N. J. L. J. 151. New York. — Packard v. Windholz, (County Ct.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 347, affirmed 88 N. Y. App. Div. 365 ; Beall v. General Electric Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 611 ; Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Butler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 566; National Bank of North America v. White, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 390 ; Packard v. Windholz, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 365, affirmed 73 N. E. Rep. 1129. Pennsylvania. — Mahanoy City First Nat. Bank v. Dick, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 445 ; Penn Safe Deposit, etc., Co. v. Kennedy, 175 Pa. St. 160; Philler v. Patterson, 168 Pa. St. 468, 47 Am. St. Rep. 896; Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 543, affirmed 190 Pa. St. 585 ; Liebig Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 469- Texas. — King v. Parks, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 95- Vermont. — Rutland Provision Co. v. Hall, 71 Vt. 208. Right of Set-off. — The maker of an accom- modation note cannot interpose any counter- claim against an innocent purchaser for value though such counterclaim might have been available to him against the payee. Carothers v. Richards, (Ky. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 211. 362. 2. Maffat v. Greene, 149 Mo. 48. 4. Beall v. General Electric Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 611. 363. 2. Mersicka. Alderman, (Conn. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 109. 364. 2. Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 549. 365. 8. Moreland v. Citizen's Sav. Bank, 97 Ky. 211. 367. 3. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 367 ; Oppen- heim v. Simon Reigel Cigar Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 355- Indorsing for the Accommodation of the Maker Before Indorsement by the Payee entitles the accommodation indorser to set up illegality or want of consideration. Leonard u. Draper, (Mass. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 644. 369. 1. Benton County Sav. Bank v. Bod- dicker, 105 Iowa 548, 67 Am. St. Rep. 310, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 369- 5. Forstall v. Fussell, 50 La. Ann. 249. 371. 3. Price County Bank v. McKenzie, 91 Wis. 658. 374. 2. Greer v. Bently, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 219. 3. Merchants Trust, etc., Co. v. Jones, 95 Me. 335, 85 Am. St. Rep. 412; Agawam Nat. Bank v. Downing, 169 Mass. 297. 44 Vol. I. ACCOM MOD A TION PAPER. 377-388 377. b. Holders with Notice — (2) Discharge by Dealings with Principal — (b) United States Authorities — Accommodation Acceptor and Maker — Conflict. — See notes 1, 2. 378. Accommodation Comaker Discharged. — See note I. 379. (3) Discharge by Breach of Condition — (b) Diversion — aa. Use of Accommodation Paper Generally — Prima Facie Unrestricted. — ■ See note 3. 380. it. What Amounts to a Diversion — Variation in Method of Use Immaterial. — — See notes 3, 4. 381. See note 1. 383. Misuse of Proceeds. — See note 1. 383. cc. Effect of Diversion — Transferee with Notice. — See note 2. 384. Transferee Without Notice. — See note 2. 385. VI. PRESENTMENT AND NOTICE — Accommodation Drawer or Indorser En- titled to Notice. — See note I. Accommodated Party Not Entitled to Notice. — See note 2. 386. VII. EXTINGUISHMENT — Payment by Accommodated Party Is Extinguishment, — See note 4. 388. Part Payment by Party Accommodated. — See note 2. [ACCOMMODATION TRAIN. — See note 2a.] 377. 1. Accommodation Acceptor Not Dis- charged by Indulgence to Drawer. — Delaware County Trust, etc., Ins. Co. v. Haser, 199 Pa. St. 17, 85 Am. St. Rep. 763. 2. Accommodation Acceptor or Maker Discharged as Surety. - — Schuff v. Germania Safety-Vault, etc., Co., (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 229 ; Mer- chants' Trust, etc., Co. v. Jones, 95 Me. 335, 8s Am. St. Rep. 412; Hoffman u. Habighorst, 38 Oregon 261. 378. 1. Surrender of Security. — See Got- zian v. Heine, 87 Minn. 429. 379. 3. Farley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441. 380. 3. .parley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 380. 4. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 380. 381. 1. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 381. 382. 1. Misuse of Proceeds. — Farley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 382 ; Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 9'9- 383. 2. Farley Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 118 Ala. 441, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 383 ; Sutherland v. Mead, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 103. 384. 2. Tollman v. Quincy, 129 Fed. Rep. 974 ; Moreland v. Citizens' Sav. B^nk, 97 Ky. 211. 385. 1. In re Edson, 119 Fed. Rep. 487. But see Mayer v. Thomas, 97 Ga. 772. Waiver of Notice by Partner. — See Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136. Failure to Protest Note May Be Waived by an Accommodation Indorser. — Bankers Iowa State Bank v. Mason Hand Lathe Co., 121 Iowa 570.- 2. People's Nat. Bank v. Winton, 13 Ind. App. no. 386. 4. An Accommodation Acceptor for a Third Party is not discharged by a payment made by the drawer. Dill v. Wheatley, 34 Nova Scotia 526. 388. 2. Dill v. Wheatley, 34 Nova Scotia 526. 388. 2a. " The meaning of a term in such common use as an accommodation train is generally, if not universally, known. Web- ster defines it to be ' one running at moderate speed, and stopping at all, or nearly all, sta- tions.' Passenger travel is partly local, from station to station and for different distances along the route, as well as to the destination of the train. Through trains and limited trains do not meet the demands of such travel, and, in the general understanding, an accom- modation train is one designed to accommo- date the public in that respect, and arranged to stop at most of the stations to effect that ob- ject." Gray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 189 111. 400. 45 ACCOMPLICES. By L. C. Boehm. 389. I. Definition. — See note i. 390. II. Who Is an Accomplice — General Test. — See notes 2, 3. Abortion. — See note 4. 389. 1. Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 389 ; Giles v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 563. citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 389 ; Anderson v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 83 ; Winfield v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 47S ; Dever v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 1071. Other Definitions. — People v. Balkwell, 143 Cal. 259; State v. Kuhlman, 152 Mo. 100, 75 Am. St. Rep. 438; State v. Kellar, 8 N. Dak. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 776; Shelly i: State, 95 Tenn. 152, 49 Am. St. Rep. 926. " An accomplice is one who aids, abets, and assists in the commission of the crime, or, not being present, has advised and encouraged its commission." People v. Collum, 122 Cal. 186. In Aston v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 385, the court said : "An ' accom- plice,' as we understand it, is one who is im- plicated in the crime, either as a principal, an accessory, or as an accomplice ; that is, he must be connected with the crime by some unlawful act or omission on his part transpiring either before, at the time of, or after the commission of, the offense." Must Have Acted in Concert, — To make a witness an accomplice " the testimony must tend at least to show that he was acting in concert with the party on trial against whom he testified." Giles v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 563, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 389- 390. 2, Keller -v. State, 102 Ga. 511, quot- ing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113; People v. Zucker, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 363 ; Robertson u. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1000. See also Redd v. State, 63 Ark. 457 ; State v. Boysen, 30 Wash. 338. The Fact that the Witness Is Jointly Indicted. — Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 758. Seduction. — The person seduced is not an accomplice of her seducer so as to require corroboration of her testimony. Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506. A person who learns that a woman has been seduced, and by means of his knowledge com- pels her to have intercourse with him, is not an accomplice of the seducer. Anderson v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 83. Incest. — Solomon v. State, 113 Ga. 192, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390 ; State v. Kellar, 8 N. Dak. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 776; Shelly v. State, 95 Tenn. 152, 49 Am. St. Rep. 926 ; Stewart v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 174. A prosecutrix who has been forced is not an accomplice, and her evidence does not re- quire corroboration, nor will the fact that the crime amounts to rape bring it within the rule requiring corroboration of the evidence given by the woman raped. State v. Kouhns, 103 Iowa 720. To the same effect, see Smith v. State, 108 Ala. 1, 54 Am. St. Rep. 140. Adultery. — One who admits participation in adultery is an accomplice. State v. Scott, 28 Oregon 331. Rape. — The prosecutrix in a rape case is held not to be an accomplice. Hamilton v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 372. A woman who agrees not to inform on the man who raped her, but to shield him from the consequences of his crime, is not an ac- complice of the man. Miller v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 996. Statutory Bape. — A girl under the age of consent, although consenting to the act, is not an accomplice of the man who commits the offense of statutory rape upon her. State v. Hilberg, 22 Utah 39 ; Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 58 Am. St. Rep. 129; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 401. Accomplices in Other Similar Crimes. — A wit- ness who did not participate in the crime for which the defendant is on trial is not an accom- plice, although he may have been his accom- plice in other distinct offenses of the same na- ture. People v. Sternberg, 111 Cal. 3. Mere Associates of Criminals are not accom- plices. St. Louis v. Roche, 128 Mo. 541. False Swearing. — Where the defendant was prosecuted for false swearing as to the age of a girl with whom he eloped she was held to be an accomplice whose testimony required cor- roboration. Smith v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 488. One Who Advises the burning of a barn is an accomplice under the Texas statute. Dawson v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 50. One Who Forges a Deed Is an Accomplice of Him Who Utters It. — Preston v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 72. Employer of Detective. — A person who em- ploys a detective to ferret out violations of a local option law is not an accomplice of a vio- lator of such law, even though the detective be an accomplice. Aston v. State (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 385. Thief Not Accomplice of Receiver of Stolen Goods. — Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447 ; State v. Rach- man, 68 N. J. L. 120. 8. Springer u. State, 102 Ga. 447, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390 ; State v. Hilberg, 22 Utah 39, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390. 4. Georgia. — Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 511, .46 Vol. I. ACCOMPLICES. 890 303 390. 391. 393. 393. Purchasing Articles the Sale of Which la Forbidden. — See OOte J. Bribery. — See note 2. Criminal Intent. — See note 3. Mere Spectators. — See note 4. Duress. — See notes 5, 6. Feigned Accomplices. — See note I. Gaining. — See notes 3, 4. Accessory After the Fact. — See note I. Question for Jury. — See note 2. citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390. Iowa. — State v. Smith, 99 Iowa 26, 61 Am. St. Rep. 219. Minnesota. — State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 31, citing 1 Am, and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 390. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Bell, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 187, 40 W. N. C. (Pa.) 496. Tennessee. — Ferguson v. Moore, 98 Tenn. 342. Texas. — Miller v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 57s ; Hunter v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 61. The Woman Not Being a Principal, the per- son who performs the abortion cannot be re- garded as her accomplice but is a principal. Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 552. See the title Abortion, ante, p. 16. A Woman Who Advises Against an Abortion, and who accompanies the defendant to the doc- tor's office but who is not present at the com- mission of the crime, is not an accomplice. Her evidence needs no corroboration. People v. Balkwell, 143 Cal. 259. 390. 5. Sears v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 442 ; Terry v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 41 1 ; Walker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 401. A Physician Illegally Prescribing Liquor Is an Accomplice. — McLain v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 213.. 391. 2. The One Who Gives a Bribe is an accomplice, and his testimony requires cor- roboration. People v. Bissert, 71 N. Y. App. Div. n8, affirmed 172 N. Y. 643; Ruffin v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 565 ; Collins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 216. But see State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28. A Juror Who Accepts a Bribe is an accom- plice of him who gives the bribe. People v. Winant, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 361- An Officer Who Takes a Bribe Is an Accomplice. — • Morawietz v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 997. 3, Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 391 ; Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 752, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 391 ; State v. Levers, 12 S. Dak. 265, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 391 ; People v. Zucker, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 363. One Who Merely Conceals a Crime Is Not an Accomplice. — • Prewett v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 262. Witnesses for the People who were engaged in procuring evidence against the defendants had no intent to commit a crime and could not be deemed accomplices. People v. Leroy, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 55. • 4. Schribe v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 375. 47 Mere Knowledge that a Crime Is to Be Com- mitted. — Garza v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 103. Failure to Report a Crime. — A spectator who was merely present and who neglected to report a crime to the authorities is guilty of no offense. Monroe v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 8* S. W. Rep. 726. Mere Failure to Inform that Homicide Has Been Committed does not make one, who knew of the crime, an accomplice. Bird v, U. S., 187 U. S. 118. Children who were present when their mother and grandfather killed their father and who thereafter concealed the crime were not accom- plices, so far as the credibility of their testi- mony was concerned. Martin d. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 279. 5. Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196. 6. McFalls v. State, 66 Ark. 16. 392. 1. People v. Hilfman, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 541 ; Backenstoe v. State, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 688, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 568 ; Terry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 320. But see Dever v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 1071. 3. Com. v. Bossie, 100 Ky. 151, holding that each one engaged in the game (at cards) was guilty of an individual offense. 4. A Stakeholder Is Not an Accomplice. — Schwartz v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 26. 393. 1. Accessory After Fact as Accomplice — A sister of a burglar was an accomplice when she helped to hide the stolen goods. MeDanial v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 301. Contra. — Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc, of Law (2d ed.) 3931 Walker v. State, 118 Ga. 758; Bird- song v. State, 120 Ga. 854; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113, See also People v. Collum, 122 Cal. 186; People v. Amman, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 205. A Reoeiver of Stolen Goads. — Walker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 423. Contra, State v. Kuhlman, 15a Mo. 100, 75 Am. St. Rep. 438. 2. California. — • People v. Compton, 123 Cal. 403; People v. Creegan, 121 Cal. 554. Iowa. — State v. Smith, 102 Iowa 656. Massachusetts. — Com. v. Clune, 162 Mass. 206, New York. — - People v. Zucker, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 363. North Dakota. — State v. Kellar, 8 N. Dak. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 776. Texas. -— Dill 0. State, (Tex. Crim. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 950 ; Delavan v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 385; Ballew v. State (Tex, Crim. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. $16; WH- 393-399 ACCOMPLICES. Vol. I. 393. III. Accomplice as Witness— 1. Competency. — See note 4. 394. See note 1. Promise of Reward. — See note 2. 395. Joint Indictment — Infamy. — See note I. 397. 2. When Admitted as Witness — Discretion of Court or Prosecuting Officer. — See note 3. 398. See note 1. 3. Credibility — At Common Law, Question for Jury. — bee note 2. Evidence to Be Received with Caution. — See note 3. 399. See note 1. liamson v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 437 ; Herring v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 301 ; Hankins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 'S. W. Rep. 992; Bell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 677; Rios v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 505 ; Preston v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 72 ; Preston v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 307, rehearing denied 41 Tex. Crim. 313; Brooks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 924; White v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 749; Mosely v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 103. Wisconsin. — Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 48 Am. St. Rep. 954. When There Is No Conflict of Evidence the question whether one is an accomplice is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury. State v. Carr, 28 Oregon 389. Even Though It Be an Unquestioned Fact that the witness is an accomplice, it is not error for the court not to instruct to that effect and to submit it as an issue of fact. Carroll v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 1061. 393. 4. United States. — Wolfson v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 430, (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 134; Wiborg v. U. S., 163 U. S. 632. Alabama. — State v. Smith, 138 Ala. 114, 100 Am. St. Rep. 26, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 393 ; Rhodes v. State, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 365. Kentucky. — Murray t>. Com., (Ky. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 480. Louisiana. — -State v. Hauser, 112 La. 313. Missouri. — ■ State v. Riney, 137 Mo. 102; State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547 ; State v. Stewart, 142 Mo. 412; State v. Black, 143 Mo. 166; State v. Young, 153 Mo. 445. Montana. — State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68. New York. — People v. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455- North Dakota. — State v. Kent, 4 N. Dak. S77- Oregon. — State v. Magone, 32 Oregon 206. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Yingst, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 647. South Dakota. — ■ State v. Hicks, 6 S. Dak. 325 ; State v. Smith, 8 S. Dak. 547. Texas. — Oine v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 347; Atkinson v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 424; Rape v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 615; Underwood v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 193; Caudle v. State, (Tex! Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 545. Washington. — State v. Payne, 10 Wash. 545. 394. 1. Kidwell v. Com., 97 Ky. 538. See also Looney v. People, 81 III. App. 370 2. Ban- v. People, 30 Colo. 522; State v. Magone, 32 Oregon 306. 395. 1. When Tried Jointly. — State v. Angel, 52 La. Ann. 485. When Tried Separately — Competency for State — Wolfson v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 430; Barr v. People, 30 Colo. 522; Bishop v. State, 41 Fla. 522; Williams v. State, 42 Fla. 205; State v. Asbury, 49 La. Ann. 1741. Tried Separately — Competency for One Another. — McGinness v. State, 4 Wyo. 115. 397. 3. In Discretion of Court or Prosecuting Officer. — State v. Smith, 138 Ala. 114, 100 Am. St. Rep. 26, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 397. In Texas the court alone is authorized to allow such testimony. Ex p. Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Crim. 283, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 397. 398. 1. State v. Payne, 10 Wash. 545. 2. United States. — U. S. v. Van Leuven, 6s Fed. Rep. 78. California. — People v. Barker, 114 Cal. 617; People v. Compton, 123 Cal. 403. Delaware. — State v. Horner, 1 Marv. (Del.) 504- Georgia. — -Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 726. Louisiana. — State v. Hauser, 112 La. 313; State v. De Hart, 109 La. 570; State v. Thomp- son, 48 La. Ann. 1597. Michigan. — People v. Nunn, 120 Mich. 530. Missouri. — State v. Black, 143 Mo. 166; State v. Kuhlman, 152 Mo. 100 75 Am St. Rep. 438. New York.— People v. O'Farrell, 175 N. Y. 323; People v. Sullivan, 173 N. Y. 122 93 Am St. Rep. 582. Oregon. — State v. Branton, 33 Oregon 533. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Craig, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 81. South Carolina. — State f.Green,48 S. Car. 136. Washington. — State v. Harras, 25 Wash. 416; State v. Concannon, 25 Wash. 327. Judge Should Not Assume that Accomplice's Testimony Is True. — " In every case where an accomplice testifies, the judge should be care- ful not to assume in any manner the truth of the accomplice's testimony, but leave the truth of that, as well as all other evidence, to be found by the jury." Bell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 677. 3. Hanley v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 849; State v. Smith, 138 Ala. 114, IO o Am. St. Rep. 26, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 398; People v. Ruiz, 144 Cal 251- Myers v. State, .43 Fla. 500; State v. Hopper (Ga. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 452; Winfield v. State 44 Tex. Crim. 475. 399. 1. Failure to Charge as to Caution Held ' Error.— State v. Meysenburg, 17 j M Q , 1, Vol. I. ACCOMPLICES. 399-401 399. 400. 401. Testifying under Promise of Leniency. — See note 2. Full Cross-examination Should Be Allowed. — See note 3. 4. Corroboration — a. At Common Law — See note 4. See note 1. See note 1. b. By Statute. — See note 3. 399. 2. State v. Ririey, 137 Mo. 102. 3. State v. Kennedy, 154 Mo. 268; State v. Kent, 4 N. Dak. 577. 4. Delaware. — State v. Horner, 1 Marv. (Del.) 504; State v. Freedman, 3 Penn. (Del.) 403. Louisiana. — State v. De Hart, 109 La. 570; State v. Thompson, 47 La. Ann. 1597. Michigan. — People v. Nunn, 120 Mich. 530. Missouri. — State v.- Sprague, 149 Mo. 409 ; State v. Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642; State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547; State v. Black, 143 Mo. 166; State v. Koplan, 167 Mo. 298 ; State v. Ken- nedy, 154 Mo. 268; State v. Kuhlman, 152 Mo. 100, 75 Am. St. Rep. 438. New Jersey. — State v. Lyons, 70 N. J. L. 635. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Sayars, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 75. ' South Carolina. — State v. Green, 48 S. Car. 136. Wisconsin. — Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 48 Am. St. Rep. 954. Contra. — Shelly v. State, 95 Tenn. 152, 49 Am. St. Rep. 926 ; State v. Concannon, 25 Wash. 327. And see State v. Harras, 25 Wash. 416, wherein the jury was held to have been sufficiently instructed not to convict unless there was corroboration. 400. 1. United States. — Hanley v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 849. Alabama. — -State v. Smith, 138 Ala. 114, 100 Am. St. Rep. 26, citing ^ Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 400. Delaware. — State v. Horner, 1 Marv. (Del.) 504; State v. Freedman, 3 Penn. (Del.) 403. Louisiana. — ■ See State v. Callahan, 47 La. Ann. 444. Missouri. — -State v. Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642; State v. Sprague, 149 Mo. 409; State v. Kuhl- man, 152 Mo. 100, 75 Am. St. Rep. 438; State v. Koplan, 167 Mo. 298. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Sayars, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 75. Wisconsin. — Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 48 Am. St. Rep. 954. What Is Meant by " Corroboration " must be stated in the instruction. State v. Sprague, 149 Mo. 409. 401. 1. Com. v. Clune, 162 Mass. 206 (citing Com. v. Wilson, 152 Mass. 12) ; State v. Simon, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 107. Where There Is Corroborative Testimony it is unnecessary to instruct that the jury should not convict -on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. State v. Koplan, 167 Mo. 298. Sufficient Instruction. — , Where there is no statute on the subject, an instruction, caution- ing the jury that accomplice testimony should be viewed with suspicion and carefully scru- tinized, but that full credit might be given r Supp. E. of L.— 4 49 thereto if the jury concluded that it was cor- roborated, is not open to objection. Hanley v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 849. 3. Alabama. — Jefferson v. State, no Ala. 89; State v. Smith, 138 Ala. in, 100 Am. St. Rep. 26. Arkansas. — Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 58 Am St. Rep. 129; Scott v. State, 63 Ark. 310. California. — ■ People v. Sternberg, 1 1 1 Cal. 3 ; People, v. Barker, 114 Cal. 617; People v. Armstrong, 114 Cal. 570; People v. Creegan, 121 Cal. 554; People v. Lynch, 122 Cal. 501; People v. Compton, 123 Cal. 403 ; People v. Solomon, 125 Cal. xix, 58 Pac. Rep. 55 ; People v. Ardell, 135 Cal. xix, 66 Pac. Rep. 970; People v. Davis, 135 Cal. 162 ; People v. Hoag- land, 138 Cal. 338; People v. Morton, 139 Cal. 719; People v. Sullivan, 144 Cal. 471. Georgia. — Phipps v. State, 99 Ga. 195; Mc- Crory v. State, 101 Ga. 779; Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447; Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506; Taylor v. State, no Ga. 150; Solomon v. State, 113 Ga. 192; Coker v. State, 115 Ga. 210; Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186. Iowa. — State v. Smith, 102 Iowa 656 ; State v. Smith, 106 Iowa 701. Kentucky. — Murray v. Com., (Ky. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 480; Gilbert v. Com., 106 Ky. 919; Howard v. Com., no Ky. 356. Louisiana. — State v. Hauser, 112 La. 313. Montana. — State v. Welch, 22 Mont. 92 ; State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68 ; State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33 ; State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504- New York. — ■ People v. Mayhew, 150 N. Y. 346; People v. O'Fafrell, 175 N. Y. 323; People v. Reilly, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 45; People v. Winant, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 361 ; People v. Fielding, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 401 ; People v. Bissert, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 118, affirmed 172 N. Y. 643; People v. Weisenberger, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 428 ; People v. Finucan, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 407. North Dakota. — State v. Kent, 4 N. Dak. 577, 5 N. Dak. 516; State v. Coudotte, 7 N. Dak. 109; State v. Kellar, 8 N. Dak. 563, 73 Am. St. Rep. 776. Oregon. — State v. Carr, 28 Oregon 389 ; State v. Scott, 28 Oregon 331. South Dakota. — State v. Levers, 12 S. Dak. 269. Texas. — Delavan v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 385; Stewart v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 174; Johnson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 1 04 1 ; Williamson v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 437; Smith v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 488; Johnson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 327; Walker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 423; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 200; Sessions v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 62; Wright v. State, 402-407 A CCOMPLICES — A CCOMPLISH. Vol. I. -(i) Generally — Not Necessary upon Every 402. See note i. c When Sufficient Fact. — See note 2. Need Not Be Direct. — See note 3. Must Be upon Material Point and Connect Prisoner with Crime See note 1. One Accomplice Corroborating Another. — See note 2. 5. Right to Pardon of Accomplice Testifying for Prosecution Equitable Only. — See note I . Immunity Does Not Extend to Other Crimes. — bee note 3. 403. 405. 407. See notes 1, 2. Eight [ACCOMPLISH. — See note 3a. J (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 151; Cham- bers v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 495; Hankins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 992 ; Bell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 677; Rios v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 505 ; Preston v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 72 ; Gatlin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 116; Stevens v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 105; Aston v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 385; O'Quinn v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. no; Lattimore v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 644; Wilkerson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 57 S. W. Rep. 956; Price v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 83; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 186 ; Smith v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 53; Ezell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 71 S. W. Rep. 283 ; Truelove v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 386 ; Bismarck v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 965 ; Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1000. Utah. — State v. Spencer, 1 5 Utah 1 49 ; State v. Collett, 20 Utah 291. Whether There Is Any Corroborating Evidence. — Com. v. Parker, 108 Ky. 673 ; Clapp v. State, 94 Tenn. 186. United States Courts. — See Hanley v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 849, wherein it is said that such state statutes do not regulate proceed- ings in the federal courts, and that the rules of the common law apply therein. On a Preliminary Examination of a prisoner the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not sufficient to warrant his commitment. State v. Smith, 138 Ala. in, 100 Am. St. Rep. 26. Where the Accomplice Testifies in Favor of the Accused corroboration is not necessary to jus- tify the jury in acquitting, since the Texas stat- ute refers only to testimony against the accused. And an instruction that corroboration is neces- sary in such case is error. Josef v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 446. 402. 1. Parr v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 493 ; Campbell v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 27 ; Brace v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 48. And see the cases cited in the next preceding note. 2. State v. Hall, 97 Iowa 400 ; State v. Blain, 118 Iowa 466; State v. Hicks, 6 S. Dak. ' 325- 3. People v. Sternberg, in Cal. 3 ; State v. Hall, 97 Iowa 400; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113; People v. Baker, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 597; State v. Hicks, 6 S. Dak. 325 ; Tave v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. \¥. Rep. 178; Preston V- State, 41 Tex. Crim. 300 ; Ceasar v. State. (Tex. Crim. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 785; Unsell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 4s S. W. Rep. 902; Locklin v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 305. 403. 1. Com. v. Goldberg, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 142; People v. Patrick, 182 N. Y. 131. When the Corroborative Evidence Was Slight in a Close Case the judge should have charged that the evidence was as consistent with innocence as guilt, and failure so to charge was error. People v. Butler, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 508. 2. Crittenden v. State, 134 Ala. 145; Rhodes v. State, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 365 ; People v. Balkwell, 143 Cal. 259; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa 113; People v. Ammon, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 205 ; People v. Strauss, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 453. See also People v. Patrick, 182 N. Y. 131 ; State v. Kent, 4 N. Dak. 577 ; Com. v. Goldberg, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 142; State v. Hicks, 6 S. Dak. 325 ; State v. Levers, 12 S. Dak. 269 ; Looman v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 276 ; Short v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 114; Barber v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 210; Loessin v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 715- 405. 1. Solomon v. State, 113 Ga. 192; Josef v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 446. 2. People v. Creegan, 121 Cal. 554; People v. Sternberg, in Cal. 3; Howard v. Com., no Ky. 356 ; State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33 ; Preston v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. "J2 ; Gatlin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 116. It Is for the Jury to decide whether or not the corroborating witness is also an accom- plice ; and a verdict of guilty raises a pre- sumption that they found him not to be an accomplice. But if incompetent testimony is admitted to show that the witness is not an ac- complice, the verdict will be set aside. People v. Creegan, 121 Cal. 554. 407. 1. Ex p. Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Crim. 283, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 407. 3. Where Pardoning Power Cannot Act Till After Conviction. — Martin v. State, 136 Ala. 35, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 406. 3o. Distinguished from Accompanied. — Be- tween accomplished and " accompanied " a clear distinction in meaning exists. There- fore, under a statute providing that in robbery the taking must be accomplished by means of force or fear, an instruction that the taking must be " accompanied " by force or fear is erroneous. State v. Johnson, 26 Mont. 10. 5C ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. By O. D. Estee. 408. I. Definition and General Principles — Definition. — See note i. 409. Effect — Rescission. — See note I. 410. II The Agreement of Accord — 1. Subject-matter of the Accord. — See note 2. 413. 3. Consideration of the Accord — a. Generally — must Be of Benefit to the Creditor. — See notes 3, 4. 413. b. Part Payment of Liquidated Debt or Demand — (1) Common-laiV Rule — Part Payment No Satisfaction. — See note I . 40§. 1. Hennessy v. St. Paul City R. Co., 65 Minn. 13; Lestienne v. Ernst, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 378, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 408. Other Definitions. — An accord is " an agree- ment to accept, in extinction of an obligation, something different from or less than that to which the person agreeing to accept is en- titled." Rued v. Cooper, 119 Cal. 463; Arnett v. Smith, 11 N. Dak. 55. " An accord and satisfaction is the substitu- tion, by agreement of the parties, of something else in place of the original claim ; and, when executed, its effect is to extinguish the ante- cedent liability." Boston Newmarket Gold Min. Co. v. Orme, 18 Colo. App. 359. To the same effect see Continental Nat. Bank v. McGeoch, 92 Wis. 286 ; Rettinghouse v. Ashland, 106 Wis. 595. Receiving payment in a different medium from that called for in the contract is an accord and satisfaction. San Juan v. St. John's Gas Co., 195 U. S. 510. The Minds of the Parties Must Meet in mak- ing the agreement. See Harby v. Henes, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 366. 409. 1. See Boston Newmarket Gold Min. Co. v. Orme, 18 Colo. App. 359 ; Arnett v. Smith, 11 N. Dak. 55. 410. 2. Dornan v. Allan, Sc. Ct. of Sess., 3 F. 112. Personal Injuries.— Where a person becomes totally blind from injuries after acceptance of a payment in full satisfaction and discharge of all claims, it has been held that he may main- tain an action despite such payment, it being a question for the jury whether he has by his conduct debarred himself from suing for dam- ages. Ellen v. Great Northern R. Co., 49 W. R- 395- Where the plaintiff accepts a sum of money from the defendant in settlement of his claim for personal injuries, the plaintiff cannot, in the absence of fraud, retain the money and sue the defendant on the theory that the agreement was invalid. Drahan v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 162 Mass. 435. 412. 3. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968, 178 U. S. 353; Harri- son v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 194, 100 Am. St. Rep. 386 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. /. 326, 51 Am. St. Rep. 69s ; Weinberg v. Novick, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 168; Howe v. Robinson, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 256 ; Carpenter v . Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 584. A Resumption of Cohabitation subsequent to the accruing of instalments under a deed of separation between a husband and wife does not operate as an accord and satisfaction of a cause of action the wife may have for the default of the husband in paying such instal- ments. Macan v. Macan, 70 L. J. K. B. 90. 4. Adequacy of Consideration. — " The ade- quacy of the consideration will not be gone into by the court if it be what is known to the law as a * valuable consideration.' " Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968, reversed on other points in 178 U. S. 353- Waiver of Right to Appeal. — The waiving of the right to appeal by a judgment debtor is sufficient consideration to support an agreement to discharge a judgment by the payment of a smaller sum than the amount due. Williams ■«. Blumenthal, 27 Wash. 24. 413. 1. United States. — Lincoln Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Allen, (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 148. Compare San Juan v. St. John's Gas Co., 195 U. S. 510. Delaware. — Wood v. Bangs, 2 Penn. (Del.) 435- Illinois. — Pusheck v. Frances E. Willard N. T. H. Assoc, 94 111. App. 192 ; Ostrander v. Scott, 161 III. 339; De Kalb Implement Works v. White, 59 111. App. 171 ; Flaningham v. Hogue, 59 111. App. 315, affirmed 162 111. 129; Heintz v. Pratt, 54 111. App. 616. Indiana. — Hodges v. Truax, 19 Ind. App. 651, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 413; Little v. Koerner, 28 Ind. App. 625; Swope v. Bier, 10 Ind. App. 613; Meyer v. Green, 21 Ind. App. 138. Iowa. — Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Iowa 462; Keller v. Strong, 104 Iowa 585. Kentucky. — Cox v. Adelsdorf, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 616; Mannakee v. McCloskey, (Ky. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 482; Huff v. Logan, (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 483. Maryland. — Commercial, etc., Nat. Bank v. McCormick, 97 Md. 703 ; Chicora Fertilizer Co. v. Dunan, 91 Md. 144. 413 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Vol. I. Massachusetts.— Specialty Glass Co. v. Daley, 172 Mass. 460. Michigan. — Tanner v. Merrill, 108 Mich. 58, 62 Am. St. Rep. 687. Minnesota. — Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214; Rice v. London, etc., Mortg. Co., 70 Minn. 77 ; Hoidale v. Wood, (Minn. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1 1 00. Missouri. — Goodson v. National Masonic Ace. Assoc, 91 Mo. App. 339 ; Wetmore v. Crouch, 150 Mo. 671 ; C. H. Brown Banking Co. v. Barker, 99 Mo. App. 660; Reinhold v. Kerrigan, 85 Mo. App. 256 ; Griffith v. Creigh- ton, 1 Mo. App. 295; Tucker v. Dolan, 109 Mo. App. 442. Nebraska. — Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 875; Sheibley v. Dixon County, 61 Neb. 409; Mc- intosh v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 33; Fremont Foundry, etc., Co. v. Norton, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 1058. New Jersey. — Chambers v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 58 N. J. L. 216. New York. — Mintzer v. Supreme Council, etc., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 512 ; Whitaker v. Eilenberg, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 489 ; Meeker v. Requa, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 300 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 5r Am. St. Rep. 695 ; Lewis v. Donohue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 514; Laroe v. Sugar Loaf Dairy Co., 180 N. Y. 367, reversing 87 N. Y. App. Div. 585. Ohio. — Toledo v. Sanwald, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 116. Pennsylvania. — Mt. Holly Water Co. v. Mt. Holly Springs, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 162 ; Re Rhoades, 29 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 38, 46. South Carolina. — Riggs v. Home Mut. F. Protection Assoc, 61 S. Car. 448. Wisconsin. — Prairie Grove Cheese Mfg. Co. v. Luder, 115 Wis. 20. Comment on Common-law Eule. — The com- mon-law rule is not looked upon with favor and is confined strictly to those cases that fall within it. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 353, reversing (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968; Jackson v. Volkening, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 36. Insolvency of Debtor. — Where the debtor was insolvent and made an agreement with his cred- itor that he would not go through bankruptcy if the creditor would accept part payment of the debt in satisfaction thereof, and the debtor was forced to borrow the money to make the part payment, there was a sufficient consideration to support the accord and satisfaction. Rotan Grocery Co. v. Noble, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 586. Where a judgment debtor has no property subject to execution, but agrees to pay a smaller amount in satisfaction of the whole judgment by paying monthly instalments out of his salary which is exempt from execution, the payment of the amount agreed upon and the giving of the satisfaction piece to the debtor constitute an accord and satisfaction. Meeker v. Requa, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 300. Payment before maturity by an insolvent debtor, of a part of the debt, out of a fund that his creditors could not reach is a good consid- eration for the discharge of the whole debt. Dalrymple v. Craig, 149 Mo. 345. Beceipt under Protest. — Hodges v. Tennessee Implement Co., 123 Ala. 572; Jennings v. Durflinger, 23 Ind. App. 673; Pease w. Sagi- naw, 126 Mich. 436; Levenson v. Gillen Pub. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 454- Receiving a check under protest, that is tendered in full settlement of the claim, does not make an accord and satistaction. Robinson , v. Leatherbee Tie, etc., Co., 120 Ga. 901. Eule Changed by Statute in Some States. — Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 366. citing the statutes of Alabama, California, Georgia, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia; Ebert v. Johns, 206 Pa. St. 395, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 414. Mississippi Eule. — In Mississippi a liquidated claim may be satisfied by the payment of a small amount. The courts criticise severely the rule of the common law. Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521. North Carolina Eule. — Code Civ. Pro. N. Car., 5 574, permits the compromise of a liquidated claim by the payment of a smaller sum than the amount due. Wittkowsky v. Baruch, 127 N. Car. 313. Virginia Eule. — Civ. Code Va., § 2858, pro- vides that " part performance of an obliga- tion, promise, or undertaking, either before or after a breach thereof, when expressly accepted by the creditor in satisfaction, and rendered in pursuance of an agreement for that purpose, though without any new consideration, shall extinguish such obligation, promise, or under- taking." Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Gunter, 102 Va. 568. Payment of Liquidated Demand Is No Consider- ation for Eelease of Unliquidated Demand. — Wal- ston v. F. D. Calkins Co., 119 Iowa 150. Where the plaintiff was paid a sum of money that was admittedly due him, and gave a re- ceipt in full settlement of all claims including an unliquidated claim arising out of a breach of contract, there was no consideration for the accord and satisfaction, and the agreement was void. Ness v. Minnesota, etc., Co., 87 Minn. 4'3- In Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 353, reversing (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968, the debt consisted of two items, one of which was liquidated and the other unliquidated, and it was held that the payment of so much as was liquidated, which payment was made and ac- cepted in satisfaction of the entire indebted- ness, constituted a good accord and satisfaction. In this decision the court applied the rule that the general doctrine as to the effect of part payment of a debt in satisfaction of the whole should be confined strictly to cases within it. Acceptance of Part Payment in Full Settlement of Claim. — The acceptance of part payment in full settlement of a liquidated claim- does not operate as an accord and satisfaction. Abelson v. Gordon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 812. Eetention of Check Given Conditionally. — The maker of a note, which had become due, re- quested a renewal of part of the note and in- closed his check, stating that it was for the discount of the renewal. The check was cashed and the amount thereof credited to the maker of the note. Renewal of the note was refused, 52 Vol. I. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 415-417 415. See note 2. Release. — See note 3. Beceipt. — See note 4. (2) Variant Mode of Payment — (a) Generally. — See note 5. 416. (b) Payment at Earlier Date or Different Flaoe. — See note I. (0) Payment by a Stranger. — See note 2. (d) Payment by Negotiable Note of Debtor. — See note 3. 417. (e) Payment by Note of Third Person. — See note I. and it was held that the retention of the check did not amount to an accord and satis- faction, as the claim was liquidated. Kelley v. Lawrence, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 484. An Agreement to Satisfy a Judgment by ac- cepting certificates of indebtedness which the judgment debtor holds against the judgment creditor is without consideration and void where the face value of the certificates of indebted- ness is much smaller than the judgment. Rus- sell v. Meek, (Ky. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 373. 415. 2. Storch v. Dewey, 57 Kan. 370, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 415- 3. Wood v. Bangs, 2 Penn. (Del.) 435 ; Flan- ingham v. Hogue, 59 111. App. 315 ; Commercial, etc., Nat. Bank v. McCormick, 97 Md. 703 ; Girard F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Canan, 195 Pa. St. 589. See also Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co. v. New York, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 327. 4. Georgia. — Armour v. Ross, no Ga. 403. Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Helm, 109 Ky. 388. Minnesota. — Johnson v. Simmons, 76 Minn. 34- New York. — Komp v. Raymond, 175 N. Y. 102 ; Ahrens v. United Growers Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 11 Misc. (N. Y.) 108; Jones v. Rice, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 357 ; Forest v. Davis, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 1; Segal v. Heuer, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 601; Bloomington Min. Co. v. Brooklyn Hygienic Ice Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 66; Randall v. Brodhead, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 567 ; Evers v. Ostheimer, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 163; Simons v. Supreme Council, etc., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 617. Pennsylvania. — In re Watson, 189 Pa. St. 150; Girard F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Canan, 195 Pa. St. 589. And see infra, this title, 419. 2. Estoppel. — Where a debtor, who had paid less than the full amount of a liquidated claim, was given a receipt in full by the creditor, and a third party on the strength of this re- ceipt assumed all the debtor's liabilities, the creditor was estopped from setting up the fact that there was no consideration for the release of the rest of the liquidated claim. Ebert v. Johns, 206 Pa. St. 395. 5. United States. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v . Clark, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968. Arkansas. — • Martin-Alexander .Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 215. Illinois. — Kemmerer v. Kokendifer, 65 111. App. 31. Iowa. — Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Iowa 462, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 415- Massachusetts. — Saunders v. Whitcomb, 177 Mass. 457, quoting with approval 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 415. Pennsylvania. — ■ Ebert v. Johns, 206 Pa. St. 395- When Defendant Pays Part and also Surrenders Claims. — Where a tenant surrendered an unex- pired lease it was held that this was a sufficient consideration to support an agreement with the landlord to accept a part payment of the rent that was due in satisfaction of the whole amount. Lewis v. Donohue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 514. Payment to Different Party. — A agreed with the owner of certain real estate to pay off the mortgage on the property. It was held that the payment of a smaller sum directly to the owner himself was a sufficient consideration for the owner's agreement to release A from the pay- ment of the mortgage. Lee v. Timken, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 349. 416. 1. Little v. Koerner, 28 Ind. App. 625 ; Marshall v. Bullard, 1 14 Iowa 462, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 416; Chicora Fertilizer Co. v. Dunan, 91 Md. 144; Weiss v. Marks, 206 Pa. St. 513. 2. Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Iowa 462; Jack- son v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 66 N. J. L. 319. " It is well settled that an accord, even be- tween the plaintiff and a third party as to the subject-matter of suit, and a satisfaction moving from such third party to the plaintiff and accepted by him, are available in bar of the action, if the defendant has either author- ized or ratified the settlement." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, (Neb. 1904) 97 N. W. Rep. 1038. 3. Payment by Check or Note. — Lapp v. Smith, 183 111. 179; Hodges v. Truax, 19 Ind. App. 651, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 416; Little v. Koerner, 28 Ind. App." 625; Wells v. Morrison, 91 Ind. 51.- And see infra, this title, 419. 2. Check or Note for Less than Amount of liqui- dated Claim Held Not a Good Accord and Satis- faction. — Nathan v. Smith, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 374; Shanley v. Koehler, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 566; Frank 1. Gump, (Va. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 358. Thus in Forest v. Davis, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 1, an agreement was made whereby a debt should be satisfied at sixty cents on the dollar, by the debtor's giving to the creditor his three checks payable in the future. It was held that this furnished no consideration for an accord and satisfaction. 417. 1. Lincoln Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Allen, (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 148; Wipper- man v. Hardy, 17 Ind. App. 142. Compare Mannakee v. McCloskey, (Ky. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 482. 53 417-419 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Vol. I. 417. (f) Payment in Property. — See note 2. 419. c Unliquidated or Contingent Demand. — bee note 2. 417. 8. In re Freeman, 117 Fed. Rep. 680; Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Iowa 462, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 417; Griffith v. Creighton, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 295- See also Pither v. Manley, 9 British Columbia 257. 419. 2. United States. — Brice v. U. S., 32 Ct. CI. 23. Arkansas. — St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Selman, 62 Ark. 342. ' Colorado. — Rio Grande County v. Hobkirk, 13 Colo. App. 180. Illinois. — ■ Ennis v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 165 111. 161, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 419; Bingham v. Browning, 197 111. 122; Harland v. Staples, 79 I 11 - A PP- 7 2 J Kingsville Preserving Co. v. Frank, 87 111. App. 586 ; Miller v. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Assoc, 113 111. App. 481. Indiana. — Little v. Koerner, 28 Ind. App. 625 ; Talbott v. English, 156 Ind. 299. Michigan. — Tanner v. Merrill, 108 Mich. 58, 62 Am. St. Rep. 687. Minnesota. — Rice v. London, etc., Mortg. Co., 70 Minn. 77 ; Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214; Hillestad v. Lee, 91 Minn. 335. See also Webber v. Ramsey County, 93 Minn. 320. Missouri. — Lightfoot v. Hurd, (Mo. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 128. Nebraska. — ■ Fremont Foundry, etc., Co. v. Norton, (Neb." 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 1058; Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 875. New York. — Bloomington Min. Co. v. Brook- lyn Hygienic Ice Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 66 ; Abelson v. Gordon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 812 ;i Bernard v. Henry Werner Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 173; Lestienne v. Ernest, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 373; Goss v. Rishel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 1045; Kelly v. Bullock, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 517. North Carolina. — Kerr -0. Sanders, 122 N. Car. 635. Ohio. — ■ Brown-Ketcham Iron Works v. Ha- zen, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 681. Pennsylvania. — Harlow v. Wilkinsburg, 189 Pa. St. 443. Virginia. — American Manganese Co. v. Vir- ginia Manganese Co., 91 Va. 272. Where the salary of a public clerk is reduced and he accepts payment of the salary thus reduced, without protest, on the understanding that it is in full settlement of his claims, there is an accord and satisfaction which will prevent him from maintaining a suit at law to recover the balance due under the old rate. Wilson v. New York, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 693. Loss under Fire Insurance Policy. — Riggs v. Home Mut. F. Protection Assoc, 61 S. Car. 448. Tender and Acceptance of Check in Full Settle- ment of Unliquidated Claim — California. — Creighton v. Gregory, 142 Cal. 34. Illinois. — Michigan Leather Co. v. Foyer, 104 111. App. 268; Ostrander v. Scott, 161 111. 339- Iowa. — Greenlee v. Mosnat, 116 Iowa 535. Kansas. — Neely v. Thompson, 68 Kan. 193. Missouri. — Andrews v. W. R. Stubbs Con- tracting Co., 100 Mo. App. 599- New York. — Nassoiy v. Tomlmson, 148 N. Y. 326, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695; Brown f..Symes, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 159; Reynolds v. Empire Lum- ber Co., 85 Hun (N. Y.) 470; Freiberg v. Moffett, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 17; Logan v. David- son, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 353 ; Wisner v. Schopp, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 199, 6 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 285 ; Vorhis v. Elias, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 412 ; Komp v. Raymond, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 32; Sut- ton v. Corning, 59 N. Y, App. Div. 589 ; Lewin- son v . Montauk Theatre Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 572; Cleveland v. Toby, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 319; Whitaker v. Eilenberg, 7c N. Y. App. Div. 489 ; Genung v. Waverly, 75 N: Y. App. Div. 610; Jackson v. Volkening, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 36 ; Jones v. Keeler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 221 ; Laroe z/. Sugar Loaf Dairy Co., 87 N.' Y. App. Div. 585 ; De Lovenzo v. Hughes, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 857. Rhode Island. — Hull v. Johnson, 22 R. I. 66. Tennessee. — ■ Hussey v. Crass, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 986. Vermont. — ■ Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Brown, 68 Vt. 239. " To constitute an accord and satisfaction it is necessary that the money or check, or what- ever is offered, should be offered in full satis- faction of the demand, and should be offered in such a manner or accompanied by such acts or declarations as amount to a condition that if the party to whom it is offered takes it he does so in satisfaction of his demand. If the offer is made in such a manner, and it is accepted, the acceptance will satisfy the demand, although the creditor protests at the time that the amount received is not all that is due or that he does not accept it in full satisfaction of his claim. The creditor has no alternative except to accept what is offered with the condition upon which it is offered, or to refuse it ; and if he accepts, the acceptance includes the condition, notwithstanding any protest he may make to the contrary." Canton Coal Co. v. Parlin, etc., Co., 215 111. 244, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 419. See also U. S. Bobbin, etc., Co. v. Thissell, (C. C. A.) 137 Fed. Rep. 1 ; Cornelius v. Rosen, (Mo. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 500. Evidence that Debt or Claim Is Disputed should be submitted to the jury. McCormick v. Shea, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 485. Where the creditor cashed a check sent by the debtor in full settlement of an unliqui- dated "claim, it was strong evidence of an ac- cord and satisfaction, notwithstanding the cred- itor's assertion that he merely accepted the check as a payment on account. King v. Dorman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 133- Intention of Parties. — In order for a pay- ment of a sum of money to be an accord and satisfaction of an unliquidated claim the par- ties must intend the payment to have that effect. Snow v. Reichman, (Supm. Ct. Add T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 234. 54 Vol. I. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 420-438 420. III. The Execution of the Accobd • — See note 2. Satisfaction — 1. Generally. 421. [Acceptance. — See note 2.] 422. Accord Without Satisfaction. — See note I. 423. 2. Promise Accepted in Satisfaction. — See note 2. 427. IV. Joint Parties — joint Debtors. — See note 3. 428. Joint Creditors. — See note 2. Joint Tortfeasor. — See note 3. Receipt in Full Settlement of Claim, — Where there was a valid dispute as to the amount due a working woman and she accepted the amount paid and gave a receipt in full, there was an accord and satisfaction which would bar an action at law to recover the balance. Dean v. Gilmore, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 783. See also Jordan v. Great Northern R. Co., 80 Minn. 405 ; Cooper v. Yazoo, etc., Valley R. Co., 82 Miss. 634. 420. 2. United States. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 968; Arkansas City First Nat. Bank v. Leech, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 310. Alabama. — Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 258, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420. Kentucky. — Hale v. Grogan, 99 Ky. 170, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420. Missouri. — Barton v. Hunter, 59 Mo. App. 610. s New Hampshire. — Gowing v. Thomas, 67 N. H. 399. New York. — Smith v. Cranford, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 318; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695; Kruger v. Geer, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc, (N. Y.) 772 ; Bandman v. Finn, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 322, setting aside 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 516. North Dakota. — Arnett v. Smith, 11 N. Dak. 55- Pennsylvania. — Erie Forge Co. -v. Pennsyl- vania Iron Works Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 550 ; Langhead v. H. C. Frick Coke Co., 209 Pa. St. 368. South Dakota. — Carpenter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 584. Texas. — Southern Nat. Bank v. Curtis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 911. Full, Perfect, and Complete Satisfaction. — Ger- hart Realty Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 94 Mo. App. 356. Waiver of. Execution of Accord. — Watson v. Tanner, (R. I. 1897) 36 Atl. Rep. 715. Performance Impossible. — Field v. Aldrich, 162 Mass. 587. 421. 2. A Check Must Be Both Given and Re- ceived as Satisfaction in order to constitute an accord and satisfaction. Schermerhorn v. Gar- denier, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 280. Failure to Respond to an Offer to be accepted in lieu of damages for injuries received will not be construed as an accord and satisfaction. Hensler v. Stix, (Mo. App. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 108. A Minor has been held to be incapable of en- tering into an accord and satisfaction. Hens- ler v. Stix, (Mo. App. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 108. Acceptance and Retention of a Check for an amount less than that demanded may constitute a complete accord and satisfaction of a dis- puted claim. Le Page v. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co., 98 N. Y. App. Div. 179. 422. 1. United States. — Crow v. Kimball, Lumber Co., (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 61. Alabama. — Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 258, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 422. Arkansas. — Martin-Alexander Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 215. Georgia. — Long v. Scanlan, 105 Ga. 424. Massachusetts. — Prest v. Cole, 183 Mass. 283. Missouri. — Slover v. Rock, 96 Mo. App. 335. North Dakota. — Arnett v. Smith, 1 1 N. Dak. 55- Utah. — Whitney v. Richards, 17 Utah 226. Composition Agreement. — There was an agree- ment to release the liability of indorsers of certain promissory notes on their paying twenty-five per cent, of the face value of the notes. Composition notes for the twenty-five per cent, were given, but were not paid at maturity. These notes were not extended, but certain payments were made and accepted on them after maturity. However, it was held that this did not bar a suit to enforce the origi- nal liability of the indorsers, as there was no satisfaction. Cincinnati Third Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, 66 Fed. Rep. 872. Failure to Perform Agreement to Arbitrate. — ■ An agreement was made to submit a con- troversy to arbitration, but the agreement was never carried out. It was held that an action at law over the matter was not barred by the failure to arbitrate the dispute. Welch v. Miller, 70 Vt. 108. 423. 2. Alabama. — Smith v. Elrod, (Ala. 1898) 24 So. Rep. 994, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 423. Missouri. — Gerhart Realty Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 94 Mo. App. 356 ; Worden v. Hous- ton, 92 Mo. App. 371. New Hampshire. — Gowing v. Thomas, 67 N. H. 399. New York. — Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695. Pennsylvania. — Langhead v. H. C. Frick Coke Co., 209 Pa. St. 368. Utah. — Whitney v. Richards, 17 Utah 226. Canada. — Maguire v. Carr, 28 Nova Scotia 43i. 427. 3. In re E. W. A., (1901) 2 K. B. 642, 85 L. T. N. S. 31. See also Le Page v. Lalance, etc., Mfg. Co., 98 N. Y. App. Div. 179. 42§. 2. Ely v. Ely, 70 N. J. L. 31. 3. Jones v. Chism, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 315; Donaldson v. Carmichael, 102 Ga. 40; 55 428-430 ACCORD, ETC. — ACCORDING TO LAW. Vol. I. 428. V. Effect of Fraud, Ignobance, ob Mistake. — See note 4. 429. See note 1. 430. ACCORDING. — See note 2. ACCORDING TO LAW. — See note 4. Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. Smalley, 1 1 1 Mich. 321, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 428; Snyder v. Witt, 99 Tenn. 618, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 428; Robertson v. Trammell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 258, writ 0/ error denied (Tex. 1904) 83 S..W. Rep. 1098. 1 428. 4. Wolfe v. Parkersburg Second Nat. Bank, 54 W. Va. 689, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 428. See also Band- man v. Finn, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 322, setting aside 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 516. May Be Set Aside in Action at Law. — Brundige v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., (Tenn. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 1248. 429. 1. State Sav. Bank v. Buhl, 129 Mich. 193, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 429; Wolfe v. Parkersburg Sec- ond Nat. Bank, 54 W. Va. 689, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 429. Essential Error. — Accord and satisfaction has been held valid where it is based upon the mutual mistake of the parties regarding the length of the period necessary to elapse before the injured party can resume his work. The facts in this case did not show that there was an essential error. Dornan v. Allan, Sc. Ct. of Sess. 3 F. 112. 430. 2. According to Pitch. — Where land was laid out for a burial place " according to pitch," the expression in this connection means according to a previous selection. Easton v. Drake, 182 Mass. 283. 4. Devise. — Buzby v. Roberts, 53 N. J. Eq. 572, following Van Tilburgh v. Hollinshead. 14 N. J. Eq'. 32. 56 ACCOUNTS. By W. H. Crow. 434. I. DEFINITION — Accounts — Generally. — See note 2. 435. See note 2. II. Various Kinds of Accounts — 1. Open Accounts. — See note 3. 437. 8. Accounts Stated — a. Definition. — See note 1. Promise Implied. — See note 2. b. Parties — (1) Generally. — See note 3. 438. Admissions to Third Persons. — See note I. (4) Married Women — Wife as Agent of Husband. — See note 6. 439. (5) Executors and Administrators. — See note I. (6) Partners. — See notes 4, 5. 440. c. Previous Transactions — (1) Necessity of Previous Transac- tions of Monetary Character. — See note I. 434. 2. Morrisette v. Wood, 128 Ala. 505, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 434 ; Turgeon v. Cote, 88 Me. 108 ; Madison County v. Collier, 79 Miss. 220, 30 So. Rep. 610, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 434- 435. 2. Account and Balance of Account Dis- tinguished. — See Turgeon v. Cote, 88 Me. 108. Whatever the form of the declaration, an action upon an open and mutual account cur- rent is, in effect, for the balance due. Kingsley v. Delano, 169 Mass. 285. 3. " Continuous, Open, Current Account." — Hairston v. Sumner, 106 Ala. 381. See also Miller v. Armstrong, 123 Iowa 86; Matter of Gladke, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 625 ; Meehan v. Figliuolo, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 920. 437. 1. United States. — Patillo v. Allen- West Commission Co., (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 726, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. See also Columbia River Packing Co. v. Tallant, 133 Fed. Rep. 990. Alabama. — Moore v. Holdoway, 138 Ala. 448. Illinois. — King v. Machesney, 88 111. App. 341, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. Iowa. — Morse v. Minton, 101 Iowa 605, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. Kansas. — • Harrison v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 202. Missouri. — Davis v. Boswell, 77 Mo. App. 294. Montana. — Noyes v. Young, (Mont. 105) 79 Pac. Rep. 1063. Nebraska. — Jorgensen v. Kingsley, 60 Neb. 44, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. South Carolina. — Pope Mfg. Co. v. Charles- . ten Cycle Co., 59 S. Car. 29, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. An Account Which Has Never Been Rendered is not an account stated. Loeb v. Keyes, 86 Hun (N. Y.) 353- 2. Mine, etc., Supply Co. v. Parke, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. Rep. 881 ; Voigt v. Brooks, 19 Mont. 374; Stagg v. St. Jean, 29 Mont. 288; Noyes v. Young, (Mont. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1063; Hendrix v. Kirkpatrick, 48 Neb. 670. 3. Accounts' '^ Stated by Agents. — Southwestern Tel., etc., Co. v. Benson, 63 Ark. 283. Board of Directors of Corporation. — Evidence that copies of the original account were ex- amined and approved, and no objection made by the board of directors, is admissible under a declaration containing an account stated. Jacksonville, etc., R., etc., Co. v. Warriner, 35 Fla. 197. Tenants in Common. — Dunavant v. Fields, 68 Ark. 534. 438. 1. Bee v. Tierney, 58 111. App. 552; Kauffmann v. Judah, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 632. 6. A Note Given by a Husband acting as agent of his wife in settlement of the wife's debts is an account stated and is admissible evidence against her in an action for amount due. Mc- Cormick v. Altneave, 73 Miss. 86. 439. 1. McCarty v. Harris, 93 Md. 741. 4. An Admission by One Partner of an account stated against the firm will not bind him indi- vidually. Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446. The doctrine as between debtor and creditor of an implied promise resulting from the prep- aration and rendition of an account by one party which is received and retained by the other in silence cannot reasonably be applied in a partnership account. Hughes v. Smither, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 590, affirmed 163 N. Y. 553. 5. See Hughes v. Smither, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 590. 440. 1. Ivy Coal, etc., Co. v. Long", 139 Ala. 535 ; Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 445 ; Callahan v. O'Rourke, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 277; Allen v. Somerset Hotel Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 944 ; Moss v. Lindblomm, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 157; Davis v. Seattle Nat. Bank, 19 Wash. 65. Statement of Damage by Breach of Contract. — The retention by the defendant of an account 57 441-446 ACCOUNTS. Vol. I. 441. Single or Cross Demands. — See note I. 442. (2) Original Debt Void. —See note I. (3) Or&ww/ Indebtedness Not Recoverable — Transaction Within the Statute of Frauds. — See note 3. , . /"„.„_/ rf. Agreement as to Correctness of Accounts — (i) General Principles. — See note 4. 443. Final Adjustment. — See note I. Agreement as to the Items and Balance. — See note 2. 444. Actual Examination or Admission of Correctness. — See note I . (2) Assent of Party to Be Charged— (?) Generally — Necessity of Assent — Form Immaterial. — See notes 2, 3. 445. See note 1. 446. (b) Admissions Must Be Unconditional. — See notes I, 2. stating the precise amount of damage resulting from a breach of contract does not constitute it a stated account. Charnley v. Sibley, (C. C. A.) 73 Fed. Rep. 980. 441. 1. Account Stated with Reference to Single Item. — Moore v. Crosthwait, 135 Ala. 272 ; Powers v. New England F. Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 390- Debt Due upon Contingency.— Beltaire v. Rosen- berg, 129 Cal. 164. 442. 1. Illegal or Immoral Consideration. — Wakefield v. Farnum, 170 Mass. 422; Jorgensen v. Kingsely, 60 Neb. 44. 3. Statute of Frauds. — Anderson v. Best, 176 Pa. St. 498. See also Converse v. Scott, 137 Cal. 239. 4. Shea v. Kerr, x Penn. (Del.) 198; Love v. Ramsey, (Mich. 190s) 152 N. W. Rep. 279, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 442 ; Hall v. New York Brick, etc., Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 371. 443. 1. Must Be Understood as Final Settle ment. — Beltaire v. Rosenberg, 129 Cal. 164 Wheeler v. Baker, 132 Mich. 507, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 677; Haish v. Dillon, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 818; Tinney v. Pierrepont, 18 N. Y. App Div. 627; Taylor v. Thwing, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 76; Peirce v. Peirce, 199 Pa. St. 4, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 443; Tulley v. Felton, 177 Pa. St. 344. 2. Agreement as to Balance Struck. — Charles- worth v. Whitlow, (Ark. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 423 ; King v. Machesney, 88 111. App. 341. 444. 1. A Mutual Examination of Each Other's Items must be made by the parties. Charlesworth v. Whitlow, (Ark. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 423. " The minds of the parties must meet when an account is stated the same as when any other agreement is made; that is to say, it must be conceded by each that a certain sum is due from one to the other." Patillo v. Allen- West Commission Co., (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 726, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 444. Examination of Account on One Side Only. — McKay v. Myers, 168 Mass. 312. 2. General Rule — Writing Not Necessary. — Lallande v. Brown, 121 Ala. 513; National Cycle Mfg. Co. v. San Diego Cycle Co., 135 Cal. 335; Converse v. Scott, 137 Cal. 239; Quinn v. White, 26 Nev. 46, affirmed in 26 Nev. 49 ; Delabarre v. McAlpin, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 468. 3. Need Not Be Signed. — Wonderly v. Chris- tian, 91 Mo. App. 158. 445. 1. Assent Express or Implied.— Patillo v. Allen-West Commission Co., (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 726, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 445 ; Peterson v. Wachowski, 86 111. App. 661 ; Cahill-Swift Mfg. Co. v. Morrissey Plumbing Co., (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 204 ; Coons v. Sanguinetti, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 615 ; Hatch v. Von Taube, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 30; (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 468; Muller v. Aronson, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 1006 ; Frothingham v. Satterlee, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 613; Rand v. Whipple, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 62 ; Leiser v. McDowell, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 444 ; Spellman v. Muehlfeld, 166 N. Y. 245, reversing 48 N. Y. App. Div. 265; Forbes v. Wheeler, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 538; Delabarre v. Mc- Alpin, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 468; Krueger v. Dodge, 15 S. Dak. 159; Knapp ■v. Smith, 97 Wis. in. Assent under Duress. — See Rochester Mach. Tool Works v. Weiss, 108 Wis. 545. A Threat to Sue Civilly is not such a com- pulsion as will avoid the agreement. Atkinson v. Allen, 36 U. S. App. 255, 71 Fed. Rep. 58. Evidence of Assent. — That defendant appears to be satisfied with the settlement is a fact which can be given in evidence. Piano Mfg. Co. v. Kautenberger, 121 Iowa 213. 446. 1. Tennessee Brewing Co. v. Hen- dricks, 77 Miss. 491. Sufficient Admission. — An offer to settle by giv- ing a note for the balance of an account stated is a sufficient admission of the correctness. Hollenbeck u. Ristine, 105 Iowa 488, 67 Am. St. Rep. 306. 2. Admissions Must Be Direct and Unconditional. — Columbia River Packing Co. v. Tallant, 132 Fed. Rep. 271, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 446. See also Love v. Ram- sey, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 279. A memorandum appended to an account, stating that " the above account is subject to an attachment " to a certain amount in a desig- nated action, does not alter the legal character of the account stated or qualify the implied promise, but operates merely as a notification that present payment was prevented by the debt being arrested on an attachment issued at the instance of a third person. Halliburton v. Clapp, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 71. 58 Vol. I. ACCOUNTS. 446-451 ■ aa. Accounts Adjusted in the Presence of 446. (c) Assent Implied from Conduct Both Parties. — See note 3. 66. Payment of Balance. — See note 4. dd. Giving Evidence of Indebtedness. — See note 2. gg. Promising to Pay an Account Received Without Objection. — See 447. 448. note 1. hh. Retaining Account Rendered, Without Objection — General Principles — Bule Stated. — See note 3. 450. In Other Jurisdictions Bale Applied to Business lien Generally. — See note 2. 451. Account Rendered by Post. — See notes 2, 3. 446. 3. See Seal Lock Co. v. Chicago Mfg., etc., Co., 98 111. App. 637. 4, Payment as Admission oi Correctness. — Pay- ment by a debtor, of one of a series of notes, by offsetting credits in his favor, without reference to the whole indebtedness, to close which the notes were given, he having reserved the right to correct errors in the account, can- not be urged as such an acknowledgment of the correctness of the whole indebtedness as will preclude inquiry into the correctness of the original account. Cannon v. Vaughn Lumber Co., 52 La. Ann. 757. 447. 2. Promissory Notes. — Morse v. Min- ton, 101 Iowa 605 ; McCormick v. Interstate Consol. Rapid Transit R. Co., 154 Mo. 191 ; Campbell Printing Press, etc., Co. v. Yorkston, (C. PI. Gen. T.) n Misc. (N. Y.) 340. Evidence of Settlement. — If there was no ac- count presented to the defendant, the giving of the note would not constitute the transaction an account stated. Woodriff v. Hunter, 6s N. Y. App. Div. 404. 44§. 1. Luetgert v. Volker, 133 111. 385, affirming 54 111. App. 287. See also Concord Apartment House Co. v. Alaska Refrigerator Co., 78 111. App. 682. 3. United States. — Patillo v. Allen- West Commission Co., (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 680; Wittkowski v. Harris, 64 Fed. Rep. 712; Porter v. Price, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 655 ; Mc- Laughlin v. U. S., 36 Ct. CI. 138. Arkansas. — Atkinson v. Burt, 65 Ark. 316. California. — May berry v. Cook, 121 Cal. 588. Illinois. — Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Tur- -ney, 58 111. App. 563 ; Lutcher, etc., Lumber Co. v. Eells, 108 111. App. 156; King v. Rhoads, etc., Co., 68 111. App. 441. Kentucky. — Phelps v. Plum, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 753- Minnesota. — I. L. Elwood Mfg. Co. v. Bet- cher, 72 Minn. 103, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 410 [448]. Missouri. — McKeen v. Boatmen's Bank, 74 Mo. App. 281. Oregon. — Gorman v. McGowan, 44 Oregon S97; Nodine v. Union First Nat. Bank, 41 Oregon 386 ; Crawford v. Hutchinson, 38 Ore- gon 578. Texas. — Garwood v. Schlichenmaier, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 176. Virginia. — Goldsmith v. Latz, 96 Va. 680. West Virginia. — Shrewsbury v. Tufts, 41 W. Va. 212. Merely Bendering an Account does not make it an aocount stated. McKenzie v. Poor- man Silver Mines, 60 U. S.. App. 1, 88 Fed. Rep. 1 1 1 ; Christian, etc., Grocery Co. v. Hill, 122 Ala. 490 ; Pratt v. Boody, 55 N. J. Eq. 175; Kellogg v. Rowland, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 416; Copland v. American De Forest Wireless Tel. Co., 136 N. Car. 11. The rendition of an account and its retention without objection is but one circumstance to be submitted with all others to the trier of fact, to determine whether there has been an account stated. Harrison v. Henderson. 67 Kan. 202. Bank and Depositor. — Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 Iowa 453; Kenneth Invest. Co. v. Na- tional Bank of Republic, 96 Mo. App. 125 ; McKeen v. Boatmen's Bank, 74 Mo. App. 281 ; Farry v. Farmers', etc., Bank, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 305 ; Nodine v. Union First Nat. Bank, 41 Oregon 386, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 449. But this presumption of assent to the cor- rectness of items' in his bank book may be re- butted by other facts. Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 90. Administrators Excepted. — The mere silence of an administrator, not being a party in his own right, or his failure to object to an account against his intestate, when it is presented to him, is not sufficient to establish an account stated. Withers v. Sandlin, 44 Fla. 253. No Evidence of an Account Stated. — Evidence by the manager of a hotel to the effect that it was usual to bill guests weekly and that he never heard of the defendant objecting to such bills, was not sufficient to show an account stated. Davis v. Fromme, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 498. 450. 2. Regarded as Applicable to All Classes of Business Men. — See Ault v. Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, 15 Wash. 627. 451. 2. Accounts Sent by Mail. — See Bee v. Tierney, 58 111. App. 552. In Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 44s, the court said : " Where the presentation of an account is by mail, the per- son sought to be charged must in terms be a party to the account, or the grounds upon which it is sought to hold him as a debtor should be clearly made known to him, and a demand for payment made ; otherwise, no pre- sumption arises from his silence in relation thereto." 3. Presumption as to Receipt of Accounts Mailed. — See New York Cab Co. v. Crow, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 340. The Presumption Is Negatived by the testi- mony of the person to whom account is ren- dered that he never received the letter. Ault v. Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, 15 Wash. 627. 59 451456 ACCOUNTS. Vol. I 451. Reasonable Time. — See notes 4, 5. 452. See note 1. 453. Retention Not Conclusive. — See notes I, 2, 3. (d) Scope of Matters Covered. — See note 5. 454. See notes 1, 2. e. Account Stated, Question of Law or Fact. — See note 3. 455. f. Promise — (1) Generally — Express or implied. — See notes 1, 2. (2) Future or Conditional Promise. — See notes 3, 4. (3) Consideration. — See note 5. 456. g. Nature and Effect of Account Stated — (1) As a New Promise — (a) Generally. — See note 2. (b) Original Items Not Provable. — See note 4. 451. 4. Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904) z6 So. Rep. 445; Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446. 5. No General Test as to Reasonable Time for Retaining Account. — See Raub v. Nisbett, 118 Mich. 248. Retaining an account for five months before making an objection was held an unreasonable time. McLaughlin 1. U. S., 36 Ct. CI. 138. The retention of an account for forty-two days without objection was held to create an account stated. Donald v. Gardner, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 235. From twenty to twenty-five days may not be an unreasonable time in view of all the cir- cumstances. Ault v. Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc., 15 Wash. 627. 452. 1. When a Question for Court and When for Jury. — McLaughlin v. U. S., 37 Ct. CI. 150; Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Stump, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 574; Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 44s; Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446 ; Lewis v. Utah Constr. Co., (Idaho 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 336 ; Hendrix v. Kirkpat- rick, 48 Neb. 670 ; Nodine v. Union First Nat. Bank, 41 Oregon 386; Crawford v. Hutchinson, 38 Oregon 578. 453. 1. Presumption of Acquiescence" Not Con- clusive — Upon What Its Force Depends. — Raub v Nisbett, 118 Mich. 250, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 452 (453) ; Cham- pion v. Recknagel, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 151. 2. Retention — How Explainable. — Peirce v. Peirce, 199 Pa. St. 4, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 453. Account Retained in Ignorance of Facts. — See Vanuxem v. New York L. Ins. Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 107. 3. Columbia River Packing Co. v. Tallant, 133 Fed. Rep. 990; Jacobs v. Cohn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 339 ; Benedict v. Jennings, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 93 N. Y. Supp. 464; Good- hart v. Rastert, 10 Ohio Dec. 40, 7 Ohio N. P. 534- 5. Presumption as to Matters Included in the Settlement. — Raub v. Nisbett, 118 Mich. 248, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 452 [453], note 5 ; McDavid v. Ellis, 78 111. App. 381. 454. 1. Effect of Not Including All Trans- actions Between the Parties. — See De La Cuesta v. Montgomery, 144 Cal. 115; Hovey's Estate, 198 Pa. St. 385. 2. Counterclaims Not Deducted, — Unwell u. Johnson, 38 Oregon 571. 8. When Facts Undisputed, a Question for the Court — When Conflicting, for Jury. — Pick v. Slimmer, 70 111. App. 358 ; Dobbs v. Campbell, 10 Kan. App. 185 ; Spellman v. Muehlfeld, 166 N. Y. 245, reversing 48 N. Y. App. Div. 265 ; Heidenheimer v. Baumgarten, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 94- 455. 1. Delabarre v. McAlpin, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 468. 2. Promise Is Implied to Pay True Balance. — Mattingiy v. Shortell, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 215 ; Noyes v. Young, (Mont. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1063 ; Heidenheimer v. Baumgarten, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 94- 3. Promise May Be to Pay in Future. • — Quinn v. White, 26 Nev. 46, affirmed in 26 Nev. 49. 4. A Promise to Pay When Able means pay- ment at once. Mattingiy v. Shortell, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 215. 5. The Original Transaction Between the Farties has been held to be the consideration for the promise. Delabarre v. McAlpin, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 468. See also Noyes v. Young, (Mont. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1063. 456. 2. Gordon v. Frazer, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 382, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 456; American Brewing Co. v. Berner-Mayer Co., S3 III. App. 446 ; Morse v. Minton, 101 Iowa 605, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 456 ; Delabarre v. Mc- Alpin, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 468. The Statute of Limitations begins to run from the date of the account stated and not from the date of the last item. Mayberry v. Cook, 121 Cal. 588; Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 99 Iowa 351 ; King v. Davis, 168 Mass. 133. Under Insolvent Act.' — Under an insolvent act providing that a debt resulting from a fiduciary relation shall not be discharged, the fact that the debt has become a stated account will not prevent an inquiry into its origin. Mayberry v. Cook, 121 Cal. 588. 4. No Inquiry May Be Had as to Original Items. — Patillo v. Allen-West Commission Co., (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 680; Mincer v. Green, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 15. See also Johnson v. Tyng. 1 N. Y. App. Div. 610; Noyes v. Young, (Mont. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1063. A Book from Which Items Were Taken in pre- paring the account is admissible as in the na- ture of an admission, when it is shown that de- fendant examined such book and made no ob- jection to its correctness. Raub v. Nisbett, 118 Mich. 248. Proof of Items Unnecessary. — Powers v New England F. Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 390. 60 Vol. I. ACCOUNTS. 457-463 437. (c) Balance Is Principal. — See notes I, 2. 458. (3) How Far Conclusive — (a) Generally. — See note 2. 459. See note 1. (b) Notes for Balance Settled. — See notes 2, 3. III. Impeaching Settled ob States Accounts — 1. Generally. — 460. See note 1 461. See note 1. 463. 2. Opening Accounts De Novo. Whether Suit Can Be Maintained on Original Items. — A count on open account may be sup- ported by proof of an account stated. Sullivan Timber Co. v. Brushagel, in Ala. 114. Unfounded Claim or Items, — Though an ac- count stated be proved, yet if it clearly ap- pear that such account or particular items charged therein be wholly unfounded, no re- covery can be had for the unfounded claim or items. Hartsell v. Masterson, 132 Ala. 275. 457. 1. Balance of Account Stated Is Principal. — Peter's Estate, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 223. 2. Interest Charges in an account rendered and acquiesced in become part of the amount shown to be due, on which subsequent interest may be allowed. Brodnax v. Steinhardt, 48 La. Ann. 682. 45S. 2. Account Stated, in General, Not Con- clusive. — Burrill v. Crossman, (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 543 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 35 C. C. A. 120, 92 Fed. Rep. 968; Mc- Carthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land, etc., Co., no Cal. 687 ; Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 445 ; Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446 ; Poppers v. Schoenfeld, 97 111. App. 477 ; Gibson v. Smith, 77 Mo. App. 233 ; Clarke v. Kelsey, 41 Neb. 766 ; Campbell v. Blount, (N. V. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 756; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Charleston Cycle Co., 59 S. Car. 29. When Account Stated Conclusive — Estoppel. — — Glennon v. Vatter, 109 La. 942. 459. 1. Strength of Presumption as to Cor- rectness Dependent upon Circumstances, — The presumption that all items are correct, after a general settlement, may be rebutted by proof that one of them consisted of a debt not due at the time of settlement. Beebe v. Smith, 194 111. 634- 2. Party Setting up Matters Within His Knowl- edge at Time of Settlement. — Turner v. Pearson, 93 Ga. 515; McCormick v. Interstate Consol. Rapid Transit R. Co., 154 Mo. 191. 3. Claiming Partial Failure of Consideration in Absence of Fraud or Mistake — Gem Chemical Co. v. Youngblood, 58 S. Car. 56. 460. 1. England. — London, etc., United Bldg. Soc. v. Angell, 6s L. J. Q. B. 194. United States. — Atkinson v. Allen, 36 U. S. App. 255, 7 1 Fed. Rep. 58 ; Porter v. Price, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 655; Charlotte Oil, etc., Co. v. Hartog, 42 U. S. App. 716, 85 Fed. Rep. 150; Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Stump, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 574; Allen- West Commission Co. v. Patillo, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 628 ; Patillo v. Allen-West Com- mission Co., (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 680. Alabama. — Hunt v. Stockton Lumber Co., 113 Ala. 387. Arkansas. — Lanier v. Union Mortg., etc., Co., 64 Ark. 39. — See note 1. California. — Downing v. Murray, 113 Cal. 455. District of Columbia. — Gordon v. Frazer, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 382. Florida. — Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446. Illinois. — Pick v. Slimmer, 70 111. App. 358 ; Gottfried Brewing Co. v. Szarkowski, 79 111. App. 583; Campbell v. Greer, 81 111. App. 10,3. Kansas. — ■ Manley v. Tufts, 59 Kan. 660 ; Dobbs v. Campbell, 10 Kan. App. 185. Louisiana. — Comer v. Illinois Car, etc., Co., 108 La. 179, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 460. Missouri. — McCormick v. St. Louis, 166 Mo. 315; Wonderly v. Christian, 91 Mo. App. 158. New York. — Rand v. Whipple, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 62. North Dakota. — Montgomery v. Fritz, 7 N. Dak. 348. Pennsylvania. — -Anderson v. Best, 176 Pa. St. 498 ; Peter's Estate, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 223. South Dakota. — Hale u. Hale, 14 S. Dak. 644; Krueger v. Dodge, 15 S. Dak. 159. Texas. — Cleveland v. Campbell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896), 38 S. W. Rep. 219. Virginia. — Camp v. Wilson, 97 Va. 265. West Virginia. — • Batson v. Findley, 52 W. Va. 343 ; Chapman v. Liverpool Salt, etc., Co., (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 601. Wisconsin. — Aultman v. Connors, (Wis. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 904. Negligence in Detecting Errors. — Porter v. Price, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 655. Accounts Settled with Knowledge. — Stern v. Ladew, 47 N.. Y. App. Div. 331 ; Davis v. Fowler, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 633. Mistake in law. — Louisville Banking Co. v . Asher, 112 Ky. 138, rehearing denied 65 S. W. Rep. 831, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1661. Bona Fide Holder of Note. — A person giv- ing a note in settlement of an account cannot afterwards set up fraud or mistake against the bona fide holder. General Electric Co. v. Blacksburg Land, etc., Co., 46 S. Car. 75. 461. 1. Burden on the Party Seeking to Im- peach. — Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, (Fla. 1904)' 36 So. Rep. 445 ; Concord Apartment House Co. v. Alaska Refrigerator Co., 78 111. App. 682; Dobbs v. Campbell, 10 Kan. App. 185 ; Frothingham v. Satterlee, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 613 ; Montgomery p. Fritz, 7 N. Dak. 348 ; Fisk v. Basche, 31 Oregon 178; Gem Chemical Co. v. Youngblood, 58 S. Car. 56 ; Chapman v. Liverpool Salt, etc., Co., (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 601. 463. 1. Gross Fraud, Imposition, Mistake, or Error. — Conville v. Shook, 144 N. Y. 686; Bergen v. Hitchings, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 399 ; Langer v. Berger, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 619; Mine, etc., Supply Co. v. Creel, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 67, 61 464-469 A CCO UNTS — A CCRE TION. Vol. I. 464. 3. Surcharging and Falsifying — a. Meaning of the Terms. — See note i. b. When Leave Granted. — See note 2. 4. Lapse of Time. — See note 4. 466. 5. Usury. — See note 1. Fraud Not Essential — Substantial Errors. — Colorado Fuel, etc., Co. v. Chappell, 12 Colo. App. 385; Leidigh v. Keever, (Neb. 1902) 96 M. W. Rep. 106; Lawler v. Jennings, 18 Utah 35- 464. 1. See Bodkin v. Rollyson, 48 W. Va. 455, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 464, 465. 2. When the Fraud, Mistake, etc., Do Not Taint Entire Settlement. — Conville v. Shook, 144 N. Y. 686 ; Hale v. Hale, 14 S. Dak. 644. 4. F. J. Dewes Brewery Co. v. Kerwin, 107 111. App. 620. Compound Interest. — Porter v. Price, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 655. 466. 1. Jorgensen v. Kingsley, 60 Neb. 44. But see Dannenmann v. Charlton, 113 La. 275, where the court refused to go into the question of usurious interest, the settlement having been made more than one year prior to suit. ACCRETION. By W. B. Robinson. 467. I. Definition. — See notes i, 2. 468. Navigability of the Waters. — See notes I, 2. Result of Combination of Natural and Artificial Causes. — See note 4. 469. Meaning of Terms " Imperceptible," " Imperceptible Increase." — See note I. II. Property in Accretions — 1. In General. — See note 3. 487. 1. People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 467; Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 467. Accretion as a Source of Title. — See Sapp v. Frazier, 51 La. Ann. 171 8. 2. Alluvion Defined. — Sapp v. Frazier, 51 La. Ann. 1718; Freeland v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 197 Pa. St. 529, 80 Am. St. Rep. 850. Seaweed. — Carr v. Carpenter, 22 R. I. 528. And see the title Seaweed. 468. 1. Immaterial Whether Water Navi- gable or Not. — See Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152. 2. Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812. 4. Natural and Artificial Causes. — Ockerhausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 31; Tatum v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 647; Whyte v. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 80. Pier Wrongfully Built. — See Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592. 469. 1. Consideration of the Word "Imper- ceptible." — Wallace v. Driver, 61 Ark. 429 ; Nix v. Pfeifer, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 951. 3. Rule as to Property in Accretions — United States. — Smith v. Johnson, 71 Fed. Rep. 647; Brooks u. Roberts, 45 U. S. App. 395, 78 Fed. Rep. 411; Widdicomb v. Rosemiller, 118 Fed. Rep. 295; Stockley u. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812. Arkansas. — Wallace v. Driver, 61 Ark. 429; Nix v. Pfeifer, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 951. California. — Glassell v. Hansen, 135 Cal. 547. Illinois. — Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380; Revell v. People, 177 111. 468, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257. Iowa. — Bennett v. National Starch Mfg. Co., 103 Iowa 207; Quinlin v. Bratley, (Iowa 1899) 80 N. W. Rep. 405; Stern v. Fountain, 112 Iowa 96. Kansas. — McCamon v. Stagg, 2 Kan. App. 479 ; Peuker v. Canter, 62 Kan. 363. Kentucky. — Hunter v. Witt, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 985; Holcomb v. Blair, 76 S. W. Rep. 843, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 974. Louisiana. — Newell v. Leathers, 50 La. Ann. 162. Michigan. — People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228. Minnesota. — Shell v. Matteson, 81 Minn. 38, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 469. Missouri. — Minton v. Steele, 125 Mo. 181; Tatum v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 647 ; Cox v. Arnold, 129 Mo. 337, 30 Am. St. Rep. 450; Perkins v. Adams, 132 Mo. 131 ; Price v. Hal- lett, 138 Mo. 561 ; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228 ; McBaine v. Johnson, 155 Mo. 191 ; Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33, 79 Am. St. Rep. 504; Benecke v. Welch, 168 Mo. 267 ; Widdecombe v. Chiles, 173 Mo. 195, 96 Am. St. Rep. 507. Nebraska. — De Long v. Olsen, 63 Neb. 327 ; Topping v. Cohn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 372. New Jersey. — Ocean City Assoc, v. Shriver, 64 N. J. L. 550. Utah. — Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21. Owner of Lands Bounded by Lakes. — French- Glenn Live-Stock Co. v. Springer, 35 Oregon 312 ; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21. Reason of the Rule. — McCamon v. Stagg, 2 Kan. App. 479. Bar Formed Outside of One's Land. — See Chinn v. Naylor, 182 Mo. 583. 62 Vol. I. ACCRETION. 471-475 471. See note i. 473. See note i. Alluvion the Result of Encroachment. — See note 3. 473. Necessity of Title to Water Line. — See note 2. 2. Accretion and Reliction Compared. — See notes 3, 4. 475. 3. Reappearance of Land After Submergence. — See note I. Increase Must Be Imperceptible or Gradual — United States. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812. Arkansas. — Wallace v. Driver, 6i Ark. 429. Iowa. — - Noyes v. Harrison County, 104 Iowa 174; Quinlin v. Bratley, (Iowa 1899) 80 N. W. Rep. 405; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152. Kentucky. — ■ Holcomb v. Blair, 76 S. W. Rep. 843, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 974. Michigan. — People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228. Missouri. — Cox v. Arnold, 129 Mo. 337, 50 Am. St. Rep. 450; Perkins v. Adams, 132 Mo. 131 ; Hahn v. Dawson, 134 Mo. 581 ; Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33, 79 Am. St. Rep. 504; De Lassus v. Faherty, 164 Mo. 361. New York. — -Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592. Sudden Formation — Avulsion, — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Coult- hard v. Davis, 101 Iowa 625. See also Sweat- man v. Holbrook, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep, 691; People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228; Rod- riguez v. Hernandez, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 343. Land adjoining on one side of a river was carried by unusual freshets into the river, and when the freshets subsided an equal amount appeared added to the other side. Such ad- dition was declared to be the result of an avulsion. Nix v. Dickerson, 81 Miss. 632. Notwithstanding the fact that owing to the swiftness of the current of the Missouri river and the softness of its banks, the changes of the latter are more rapid and extensive than on most other streams, the law of alluvion has been held to apply. Bellefontaine Imp. Co. w. Niedringhaus, 181 111. 426, 72 Am. St. Rep. 269; De Long v. Olsen, 63 Neb. 327. 471. 1. Future Accretions are the inherent and essential attribute of the original property and the right to them is a vested right. Free- land u. Pennsylvania R. Co., 197 Pa. St. 529, 80 Am. St. Rep. 850. See also Bradley v. Mc- pherson, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 105. 472. 1. Crill v. Hudson, 71 Ark. 390; Towell v. Etter, 69 Ark. 34 ; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228; Topping v. Cohn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 372. Adverse Possession of Original Tract. — The title by adverse possession to the accretions, how- ever recent, relates back to and follows the title of the mainland. Bellefontaine Imp. Co. v. Niedringhaus, 181 111. 426, 72 Am. St. Rep. 269 ; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228. 3. Furpresture, — See Revell v. People, 177 111. 468, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257. 473. 2. A certain lot, at the time of its conveyance was bounded by a street running along the ocean front, and a strip of land in- tervened between the street and the ocean. Subsequently the ocean washed away the street and the water line came up to the lot. There- after the ocean receded. It was declared that the accretions belonged to the owner of the strip and not to the owner of the lot. Ocean City Assoc, v. Shriver, 64 N. J. L. 550. See also Bradley v. McPherson, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 105 ; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21, per Baskin, J., dissenting. Right to Accretions as Dependent on Contiguity. — Sweringen v. St. Louis, 151 Mo. 348, citing i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 473, note 2; Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Widdecombe v. Chiles, 173 Mo. 195, 96 Am. St. Rep. 507. In Crandall v. Smith, 134 Mo. 633, Gantt, J., said : " There is nothing saltatory about accretion." 3. Reliction Defined as derelict land or land left dry by the retirement of the sea. Ocean City Assoc, v. Shriver, 64 N. J. L. 550. Periodic Subsidence of the waters, occasioned by the seasons, does not constitute dereliction. Sapp v. Frazier, 51 La. Ann. 1718. i. Recession Must Be Slow, Gradual, and Im- perceptible. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Wallace v. Driver, 61 Ark. 429; Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380 ; Noyes v. Collins, 92 Iowa 566 ; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152; Victoria v. Schott, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 332. See also Olson v. Hunt- amer, 6 S. Dak. 364. Reliction Takes Place Must Frequently in Lakes and Ponds. — Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380 ; Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S. Dak. 364- Reclamation of Soil. — In New Jersey the owner of lands at high-water mark has the right to reclaim lands of the state lying under tide water in front of his ownership. Simpson v. Moorhead, 65 N. J. Eq. 623. See Sage v. New York, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 294. 475. 1. Reappearance After Submergence. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Widdicombe v. Rosemiller, 118 Fed. Rep. 295 ; Hughes v. Birney, 107 La. 664 ; Ocean City Assoc, v. Shriver, 64 N. J. L. 550 ; Simpson v. Moorhead, 65 N. J. Eq. 6*23. See also Cox u. Arnold, 129 Mo. 337, 50 Am. St. Rep. 450. When Portions of the Mainland, etc. — Stock- ley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812. When an Island is washed away by the action of the waters and gives place to the channel of the river, and thereafter land appears in its place owing either to reliction or elevation by alluvial deposits, proprietorship thereof returns to the original owner of the island. Widdi- combe v. Rosemiller, 118 Fed. Rep. 295. But see Vogelsmeier v. Prendergast, 137 Mo. 271. Duration of Submergence. — Hughes v. Birney, 107 La. 664; Simpson v. Moorhead, 65 N. J. Eq. 623. Where Identity Is Lost. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Widdicombe v. 63 475-479 A CCRE TION— A CCR UE. Vol. I. 475. 4. Doctrine of Accretion and Religion as Applicable to Islands. — See notes 2, 3. 476. See note 1. „ T „„o 9 Ha III. Rationale of Rule as to Property in Accretions — a. ue Minimis Hon Curat Lex. — See note 2. 3. Considerations of Public Policy. — See note 3. 477. 4. As a Compensation for Risk of Loss. — See note 1. IV. Apportionment of Accretions — 1. In General. — bee ncte 2. 478. 2. Islands in Private Waters. — See note 1. 479. ACCRUE — ACCRUED — ACCRUING. — See notes 1, 2, 3. Where a tract is bounded by north and south survey lines, and on the east by a river, the method of apportionment is to extend such lines, and accretions formed beyond the ex- tended lines belong to the adjacent owners. Smith v. Johnson, 71 Fed. Rep. 647. Where contiguous properties lie upon the upper bank of a river flowing southeasterly and are separated by a north and south section line, the accretions are to be divided by ex- tending the section line. McCamon v. Stagg, 2 Kan. App. 479. See also Gorton v. Rice, 153 Mo. 676. Where a lake has dried up imperceptibly " the title of the shore owner extends to the centre of the lake, the boundary line of his tract extending from the shore or meandered line, on lines converging to a point in the cen- tre of the lake bed." Shell v. Matteson, 81 Minn. 38. Modification of Rules of Apportionment. — There is no fixed and universal rule to be applied with- out modification to every instance of accretions in determining the rights of coterminous owners therein. Smith v. Johnson, 71 Fed. Rep. 647 ; Gorton v. Rice, 153 Mo. 676. 478. 1. Victoria v. Schott, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 332. 479. 1. Anderson v. Richards, 99 Ky. 661. 2. Moyer v. Badger Lumber Co., 10 Kan. App. 142 ; Allen v. Armstrong, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 429. Accrued Not Equivalent to Due. — Under an Iowa statute providing that " the executor of a tenant for life who leases real estate so held, and dies on or before the day on which the rent is payable, * * * may recover the proportion of rent which had accrued at the time of his death," rent would not become payable before due, and the word accrued must be construed to mean an apportionment of the rent between the executor and rever- sioner pro rata as to time, because, if accrued is held to mean " due," then the statute is de : prived of all vitality. Gudgel v. Southerland, 117 Iowa 309. 3. CauBe of Action. — Weiser v. McDowell, 93 Iowa 772. See Barnes v. Brooklyn, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 522. Accrue in Sense of Arise. — See Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Skipper, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 72. The Phrase " Accrued Claims," in a statute providing that the emergency fund of an assess- ment insurance company shall be used first in the payment of accrued claims, means claim? which become accrued through the death o' Rosemiller, 118 Fed. Rep. 295. See Simpson v. Moorhead, 65 N. J. Eq. 623. 475. 2. Islands Formed by Accretion or Re- liction. — Glassell v. Hansen, 135 Cal. 547; Griffin v. Johnson, 161 111. 377 ; Kaskaskia v. Mc- Clure, 167 111. 23 ; Bellefontaine Imp. Co. v. Nied- ringhaus, 181 111. 426, 72 Am. St. Rep. 269 ; Hol- man v. Hodges, 112 Iowa 714; East Omaha Land Co. v. Hanson, 117 Iowa 96; People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228; McBaine v. Johnson, 15s Mo. 191 ; Victoria v. Schott, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 332. Thus, the owner of land bounded by the Missouri river does not become the owner of an island which forms in front of his property, because he does not own any part of the bed of the stream but only to the water's edge. Perkins v. Adams, 132 Mo. 131 ; Hahn v. Dawson, 134 Mo. 581 ; Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33, 79 Am. St. Rep. 504. See also Cox v. Arnold, 129 Mo. 337, 50 Am. St. Rep. 450. 3. Islands in Public Waters. — Glassell v. Hen- sen, 135 Cal. 547; People v. Warner, 116 Mich. 228. See also Sherwood v. State Land Office Com'rs, 113 Mich. 227; Franzini v. Lay- land, 120 Wis. 72. 476. 1. Islands in Private Waters. — Vic- toria v. Schott, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 332. Where a River Changes Its Course. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Sweat- man v. Holbrook, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 691 ; De Lassus v. Faherty, 164 Mo. 361. 2. Blackstone's Reason of the Rule. — See Peuker v. Canter, 62 Kan. 363. 3. Public Policy. — Wallace v. Driver, 61 Ark. 429. 477. 1. Consideration of Natural Justice. — Wallace v. Driver, 61 Ark. 429 ; Glassell v. Hansen, 13s Cal. 547; Peuker v. Canter, 62 Kan. 363; Sweringen v. St. 1 Louis, 151 Mo. 348; Moore v. Farmer, 156 Mo. 33, 79 Am. St. Rep. 504 ; Ocean City Assoc, v. Shriver, 64 N. J. L. 550, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 477 ; French-Glenn Live-Stock Co. v. Springer, 35 Oregon 312; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21. Cogent Reason for the Rule. — " It preserves the fundamental riparian rights, which often constitute the principal value of the land, of access to the water." French-Glenn Live-Stock Co. v. Springer, 35 Oregon 312. 2. Principles of Division — Rules Given. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812; Nauman v. Burch, 91 111. App. 48; Newell v. Leathers, 50 La. Ann. 162, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 477 ; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228. See also De Lassus v. Faherty, 164 Mo. 361, 64 Vol. I. A CCUSED — A CKNO WLEDGE. 481-488 481. ACCUSED. — See note 3. 482. See note 1. ACCUSTOMED. — See note 2. [ACETANILID.— See note 2a. J ACKNOWLEDGE. — See note 4. the person insured. Atty.-Gen. v. Massachu- setts Ben. L. Assoc, 171 Mass. 194. 481. 3. People v. Prey, 112 Mich. 251, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 481 ; Reg. v. Kempel, 31 Ont. 633, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 481. Accusation. — " The term accusation is a broad term ; it includes indictment, present- ment, information, and any other form in which a charge of a crime or an offense can be made against an individual. The term, as used in our law in reference to trials in courts having jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, l& but the equivalent of an information at common law." Per Cobb, J., in Gordon v. State, 102 Ga. 679. See also Wright v. Davis, 120 Ga. 670. Accusation — Accused. — ■ In Brannan v< State, 44 Tex. Crim. 399, the court said : " A per- son is said to be accused of an offense from the time that any ' criminal action ' shall have been commenced against him. A legal arrest without warrant ; a complaint to a magis- trate ; a warrant legally issued ; an indictment, or an information, are all examples of accusa- tion, and a person proceeded against by either of these is said to be accused; As we under- stand an accusation under our statute, it I SUpp. E. of L.— 5 65 applies to a pending prosecution, and when that prosecution has been terminated in a conviction it ceases to be an accusation." 482. 1. Reg. v. Kempel, 31 Ont. 633. 2. Accustomed Equivalent to Usual in an in- struction denning ordinary care. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Smith, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 33d. See also St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Brown, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 57. 2a. Acetanilid has been defined as a chem- ical Compound prepared from aniline oil, a product of cqal tar, by treatment with carbolic acid. It derives its characteristics purely from coal tar, and is properly classified under the Customs Duties Act under a paragraph pro- viding for preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes not specially provided for, rather than under paragraphs providing for medicinal com* pounds, or all chemical compounds not spe-- cially provided for. U. S. v. Roessler, etc., Chemical Co., (C. C. A.) 79 Fed. Rep. 313; and see the title Revenue Laws. 4. Acknowledged. — As to the meaning of acknowledged the relation of parent under the New York Collateral Inheritance Tax Law, see Matter of Birdsall, (Surrogate Ct.) at Misc. (N. Y.) 180. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Bv L. C. Boehm. 484. I. Definition and Object — Definition. — See note i. Object. — See note 2. 487. II. Nature of the Act — Whether Ministeeial oe Judicial. — See notes i, 2. 488. III. Origin and Necessity — 1. Of Statutory Origin. — See note 2. 2. How Far Necessary to Validity of Deed. — See notes 3, 4. 484. 1. What Not Acknowledgment. — Where an officer, authorized to take acknowledgments, happened to be present and to overhear a dis- pute in which the maker of an agreement ad- mitted making it, but denied its binding effect, and the officer did not address the maker or disclose his official character, it was held that this was not an acknowledgment before the officer in contemplation of law. Riddle v. Kel- ler, 61 N. J. Eq. 513. 2 Twofold Object of Acknowledgment. — Solt v. Anderson, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 678 ; Whalon v. North Platte Canal, etc., Co., n Wyo. 349. Acknowledgment Not Necessary for Recording When Execution Otherwise Proved — California. — Whittle v. Vanderbilt Min., etc., Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 48. A Deed with a Defective Certificate of Ac- knowledgment, or without any acknowledgment at all, may be introduced in evidence. Rullman v. Barr, 54 Kan. 643. Acknowledgment of Instrument Not Required to Be Recorded Not Proof of Execution. — Ruther- ford v. Rutherford, (W. Va. 1904) 47 S. E. Rep. 240. And see the title Recording Acts, 141. 487. 1. California. — Woodland Bank v. Oberhaus, 125 Cal. 320. Kansas. — Heaton v. Norton County State Bank, 59 Kan. 281. Montana. — Mahoney v. Dixon, (Mont. 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 519. Taking Acknowledgments Held Ministerial — Nebraska. — Horbach v. Tyrrell, 48 Neb. 514, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 487, 488. New Jersey. — Morrow v. Cole, 58 N. J. Eq. 203. New York. — Albany County Sav. Bank v. McCarty, 149 N. Y. 82, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 487. Ohio. — Read v. Toledo Loan Co., 68 Ohio St. 280 ; Read v. Toledo Loan Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 25. Tennessee. — Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Tenn. 287, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 487 ; Keene Guaranty Sav. Bank v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ad ed.) 487. 2 Taking Acknowledgments Held to Be a Judi- cial Act. — Cheney v. Nathan, no Ala. 354, 53 Am. St. Rep. 26 ; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. $28; Horbach v, Tyrrell, 48 Jfeb, 51^, citing 1 M Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 487, 488; Riddle v. Keller, 61 N. J. Eq. 513; Nim- ocks v. Mclntyre, 120 N. Car. 325; Cochran v. Linville Imp. Co., 127 N. Car. 393. See also Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Tenn. 285, 56 Am. St. Rep. 793. 488. 2. Origin of the Practice of Taking Acknowledgments. — Swett v. Large, 122 Iowa 267; Finley v. Babb, 173 Mo. 257; Read v. Toledo Loan Co., 68 Ohio St. 280. 3. Acknowledgment No Part of Deed. — Linton v. National L. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 584, 44 C. C. A. 54; Bennett v. Knowles, 66 Minn. 4; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. 228 ; Hess v. Trigg, 8 Okla. 286. 4. Unacknowledged Deed Good as Between Parties — United States. — Linton v. National L. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 584, 44 C. C. A. 54. California. — Rosenthal v. Merced Bank, 1 10 Cal. 198. Colorado. — Morse v. Morrison, 16 Colo. App. 449; Edinger v. Grace, 8 Colo. App. 21. Florida. — Marsh v. Bennett, (Fla. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 237. Illinois. — Weill v. Zacher, 92 111. App. 296; Ogden Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Mensch, 96 111. 554, 89 Am. St. Rep. 330, affirming 99 111. App. 67. Iowa. — - Slattery v. Slattery, 120 Iowa 717; Kruger v. Walker, 94 Iowa 506. Kansas. — Rullman v. Barr, 54 Kan. 643 ; Heaton v. Norton County State Bank, 59 Kan. 281. Michigan. — Fulton v. Priddy, 123 Mich. 298, 81 Am. St. Rep. 201 ; Schwartz v. Woodruff, 132 Mich. 513, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 696. Missouri. — Finley v. Babb, 173 Mo. 257; Brim v. Fleming, 135 Mo. 597; Staples v. Shackleford, 150 Mo. 471; Brown v. Koenig, 99 Mo. App. 653- Nebraska. — Horbach v. Tyrrell, 48 Neb. 514; Holmes v. Hull, 50 Neb. 656 ; Galligher v. Con- nell, 46 Neb. 372; Solt v. Anderson, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 678; Linton v. Cooper, S3 Neb. 400. New Hampshire. — Roberts v. Rice, 69 N. H. 472. North Carolina. — Barrett v. Barrett, 120 N. Gar. 127. Ohio. — Jay v. Squire, 5 Ohio Dec. 318. Oklahoma. — Hess v. Trigg, 8 Okla. 286. Pennsylvania. — Kaiser's Estate, 199 Pa. St. 269. Tennessee- — McQuire y, Qallagher, 05 Tenn. 349. " Vol. I. A CKNO WLEDGMENTS. 490-493 490. As Against Persons Without Notice. — See note I. 493. Exceptions to General Eule — Harried Woman's Deed. — See note I . 493. IV. Who May Take Acknowledgments — 1. In General — b. Cir- cumstances Affecting Qualification of Officer — (i) Interest. — See note i. 24 Tex. Civ. App. 637 ; Derrett v. Britton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 562. Utah. — Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548. Washington. — Bloomingdale v. Weil, 29 Wash. 611. Wyoming. — Whalon v. North Platte Canal, etc., Co., 11 Wyo. 349, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 488, 489. Acknowledgments Intended to Protect Pur- chasers and Creditors. — See Talcott v. Hurl- bert, 143 Cal. 4. Necessity of Acknowledgment — miscellaneous Instrument. — An Acknowledged Tax Deed gives color of title which may be strengthened by possession. Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260. An Assignment of a Tax Deed Must Be Acknowledged. — Mattocks v. McLain Land, etc., Co., 11 Okla. 433. Homestead. — ■ An acknowledgment is an es- sential in a conveyance of the homestead. Horbach v. Tyrrell, 48 Neb. 514. See the title Homestead, 681. 490. 1. Registration Without Acknowledg- ment Is Not Notice — Arkansas. — Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309. Georgia. — Crummey v. Bentley, 114 Ga. 746. Indiana. — Kothe v. Krag-Reynolds Co., 20 Ind. App. 293. Iowa. — Bardsley v. German-American Bank, 113 Iowa 216. Missouri. — Staples v. Shackleford, 150 Mo. 471 ; Williams v. Butterfield, 182 Mo. 181. North Carolina. — Blanton v. Bostic, 126 N. Car. 421. Pennsylvania. — Lancaster v. Flowers, 198 Pa. St. 614. Texas. — Daugherty v. Yates, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 646. Virginia. — Nicholson v. Gloucester Charity School, 93 Va. 101. See also the title Recording Acts, 101, 142. Chattel Mortgage — Illinois. — Chicago First Nat. Bank v. Baker, 62 111. App. 154. Mortgage of Exempt Chattels. — Under the Mis- souri statute which provides that a mortgage of chattels exempt from execution against the owner as the head of a family must be con- curred in and signed by both husband and wife, it is not necessary for the wife to acknowledge such a mortgage. Brown v. Koenig, 99 Mo. App. 653. A Latent Defect in the acknowledgment will not prevent the record from operating as con- structive notice. Ogden Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Mensch, 196 111. 554, 39 Am. St. Rep. 330, affirming 99 111. App. 67 ; Morrow v. Cole. 58 N. J. Eq. 203 ; Pennsylvania Trust Co. v. Kline, 192 Pa. St. 1 ; Forbes v. Thomas, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 1097. And see the title Recording Acts, 103. A Defect Due to Surplusage does not prevent the record from giving notice. Martin v. Heil- man Mach, Works, 89 111. App. 159. ' Lapse Qf Time Confers No. Presumption of Regu- 6? larity so as to legalize the record of an insuf- ficient acknowledgment. Heintz v. O'Donnell, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 21. 492. 1. Acknowledgment Held Essential to Pass Title. — Watson v. Herring, 115 Ala. 271; Branch v. Smith, 114 Ala. 463. 493. 1. An Officer Who Is Grantee or Mort- gagee — California. — Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364; Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co., 120 Cal. 311. Florida. — Florida Sav. Bank, etc., Exch. v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575. Iowa. — Smith v. Clark, 100 Iowa 610, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493. Nebraska. — Banking House v. Stewart, (Neb- 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 34; Wilson v. Griess, 64 Neb. 792. New Jersey. — Morrow v. Cole, 58 N. J. Eq, 203. New York. — Armstrong v. Combs, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 246, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493. North Carolina. — Lance v. Tainter, (N. Car. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 211. Ohio. — Amick v. Woodworth, 58 Ohio St. 86. Pennsylvania. — Gans v. Drum, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 481. Virginia. — Hunton v. Wood, 101 Va. 54; Sheridan First Nat. Bank v. Citizens' State Bank, 11 Wyo. 32, 100 Am. St. Rep'. 925, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 493- In a collateral attack on an acknowledgment the fact that the grantee took the acknowledg- ment cannot be introduced. Fearn v. Beirne, 129 Ala. 435. An Officer Who Is Trustee in a Deed of Trust. — Steger v. Traveling Men's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 208 111. 236, 100 Am. St. Rep. 225; Fugman v. Jiri Washington Bldg., etc., Assoc, 209 111. 176; Russell v. Bosworth, 106 111. App. 314; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. 228 ; Williams v. Moniteau Nat. Bank, 72 Mo. 292 ; Weidman v. Templeton, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 61 S. W. Rep. 102. Officer Who Is Grantor. — Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309 ; Morrow v. Cole, 58 N. J. Eq. 203. Identity of Names of the mortgagee and the officer who took the acknowledgment is prima facie evidence that they are one and the same. Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364. Contra, Bell v. Wood, 94 Va. 677, holding that it was not to be presumed that the officer was guilty of im- proper conduct. An Officer Who Is Attorney or Agent of a Party to the instrument is not on that account dis- qualified to take the acknowledgment. Have- meyer v. Dahn, 48 Neb. 536, 58 Am. St. Rep. 706 ; Holmes v. Hull, 50 Neb. 656. A notary is not disqualified to take the ac- knowledgment of a mortgage by the fact that he is an officer of a corporation which acted as agent for the mortgagor. Gilbert v. Garber, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep, 1030. The selling agent of the vendor is not necej. 494-498 A CKNO WLEDGMENTS. Vol. I. 494. (2) Relationship, — See note I. 495. (4) De Facto and Ex Officio Officers. — See note 2. 496. (5) Deputy. — See note 1. 497. See note 1. 498. c. Extraterritorial Authority of Officer. — See note 1. sarily so interested in the sale as to disqualify him from taking the acknowledgment of the vendee. National Cash Register Co. v. Lesko, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 967. ; A notary public who is the agent of the mort- gagor and represents him in negotiating the loan is competent to attest the mortgage deed. Austin v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 382. Mortgage to Firm, Acknowledged before Partner. -^- Farmers's, etc., Bank v. Stockdale, 121 Iowa 748. ' An Officer Who Is a Party to the Instrument cannot properly take an acknowledgment. Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309 ; Meckel Bros. Co. v. De Witt, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 174; Hed- bloom v. Pierson, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. &i&;- Leftwich v. Richmond, 100 Va. 164, 4 Va. Sup. Ct. 128. An Officer Who Is in Any Way Interested should not take an acknowledgment, and all such are either voidable or absolutely void. Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Tenn. 285, 56 Am. St. Rep. 79s, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493, 494 ; Havemeyer v. Dahn, 48 Neb. 536, 58 Am. St. Rep. 706. An Officer Having a Pecuniary Interest is dis- qualified thereby to take an acknowledgment. Watkins v. Youll, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1042. An Officer Having Interests the Same as the 1 Grantor's cannot take an acknowledgment. Schwartz v. Woodruff, 132 Mich. 513, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 696. An Acknowledgment by an Officer Who Is a Beneficiary of a Trust Assignment is not invalid but merely irregular. Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478. An Officer Who Is Attorney for the Beneficiary in a Trust Deed is not qualified to take an acknowledgment to the trust deed, but the deed is good between the parties. Southwestern Mfg. Co. ■v. Hughes, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 637. An Officer Who Is a Surety on a Deed of Trust is not a proper party to take an acknowledg- ment. Blanton v. Bostic, 126 N. Car. 421, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493. A Stockholder in a Corporation is by the weight of authority held to be disqualified to take the acknowledgment of an instrument to which the corporation is a party. Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216; National Bldg., etc, Assoc ti. Cunningham, 130 Ala. 539; Jenkins v. Jonas Schwab Co., 138 Ala. 664; Ogden Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Mensch, 196 111. 563, 89 Am. St. Rep. 339, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493 ; Kothe v. Krag-Reynolds Co., 20. Ind. App. 293 ; Chadron Loan, etc., Assoc, v. O'Linfl, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 368; Miles f. Kelley, t6 Tex. Civ. App. 147; Bexar Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154; Workman's Mut,- Ace. Assoc, v. Monroe, (Tex. 68 Civ. App. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 1029; Sheridan First Nat. Bank v. Citizens' State Bank, li Wyo. 32, 100 Am. St. Rep. 925, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 493. Contra. — Read v. Toledo Loan Co., 68 Ohi6 St. 280 ; Keene Guaranty Sav. Bank v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572. An Officer of a Corporation, if not a stockholder, may take the acknowledgment of an instru- ment to which the corporation is a party. Ogden Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Mensch, 196 111. 554, 8g Am. St. Rep. 330, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (iA ed.) 493; Woodland Bank ■v, Oberhaus, 125 Cal. 320; Bardsley V. Ger- man-American Bank, 113 Iowa 216; Horbach v, Tyrrell, 48 Neb. 514; Wachovia Nat. Bank ■v. Ireland, 122 N. Car. 571; Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Evans, (Tenn, Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 1104. Collateral Attack. — 'The objection that the officer taking the acknowledgment was disquali- fied cannot be taken advantage of on collateral attack. Monroe v. Arthur, 126 Ala. 362, 85 Am. St. Rep. 36; Fearn v. Beirne, 129 Ala. 435 ; National Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Cunning- ham, 130 Ala. 539, distinguishing Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216. 494. 1. Acknowledgment before Officer Be- lated to Parties. — McAllister v. Purcell, 124 N. Car. 262 ; Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual , Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Tenn. 285, 56 Am. St, Rep. 795 ; Silcock v. Baker, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 508. Compare Nixon v. Post, 13 Wash. 181, to same effect as Kimball v. Johnson, 14 Wis. 674, cited in the fourth paragraph of the original note. 495. 2. De Facto Officer May Take Acknowl- edgment." — See Crutchfield u. Hewett, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 373; Old Dominion Bldg., etc., Assoc, u. Sohn, 54 W. Va. 101. A Female Notary, although not properly a notary, is a de facto notary, and acknowledg- ments taken by her are valid. Stokes v. Acklen, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 316. Acknowledgment before an Officer After the Expiration Of His Term. —An acknowledgment taken two years after expiration of the term, where none was taken in the interim, is void. Hughes v. Long, 119 N. Car. 52 496. 1. Acknowledgment Taken by Deputy.— Wilkerson v. Dennison, (Tenn. Ch. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 765 ; Gate City v. Richmond, 97 Va. 337- Deputy's Certificate — Forgery. — Where a hus- band forges his wife's acknowledgment and - signs it in the name of a deputy clerly, the clerk who certifies to its genuineness is liable to the party injured. Samuels v. Brand, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 977. 497. 1. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Barclay, 108 Ala. 155; Wilkerson v. Dennison, (Tentt. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 765. 498. 1. Such Acknowledgments Held Invalid. •Evans v. Dickenson, 114 Fed. Rep. 284, $1 Vol. I. A CKNO WLEDGMENTS. 500-519 500. 2. Within the State. — See notes I, 2, 3, 4. 501. 3. In Other States — By officers of other states. — See note 2. 503. By Commissioners of the State Where the Property Is Situated. — See note I. 504. Formalities Required. — See note I. 506. 4. In Foreign Countries. — See note 1. 507. V. Who May Make Acknowledgments 508. 2. Agent or Attorney. — See note 2. 509. 3. Partners. — See note 1. 510. See note 1. 4. Corporations. — See notes 2, 3, 4. 1. Generally. — See note 1. C. C. A. 170; In re Henschel, 109 Fed. Rep. 861 ; New England Mortg. Security Co. v. Payne, 107 Ala. 578 ; Middlecoff v. Hemstreet, 135 Cal. 173; Bostick v. Haynie, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 856. 500. 1. Acknowledgments under United States Statutes. — A Consul of the United States has no authority to take acknowledgments in the states. McCandless v. Yorkshire Guar- antee, etc., Corp., 101 Ga. 180. A United States Commissioner Has No Au- thority to take acknowledgments to conveyances of real estate in Nebraska. Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Strine, 58 Neb. 133. A Commissioner of Deeds of the city of New York has power £0 take acknowledgments in any of the boroughs of the city without regard to the county in which the borough lies. People v. Haggerty, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 296. In North Carolina the chairman of thi Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions is authorized- to take privy examination of married women in conveyances of land. An acknowledgment taken when the court is not in session is valid. Spivey v. Rose, 120 N. Car. 163. 2. Under the Tennessee statute giving notaries public the same authority as county court clerks in respect to taking acknowledg- ments of deeds and other instruments, a notary public may take the privy examination of a married woman conveying real estate. Daly v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 114. Under 1 the Michigan statute a notary public of one county may take acknowledgments in other counties. Lamb v. Lamb, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 643. 8. Under the Georgia statute providing that acknowledgments may be taken by a " jus- tice of any court in this state," * judge of the Superior Court may take acknowledgments. The word " justice " is used as synonymous with "judge." Strauss v. Maddox, 109 Ga. 223. 4. Clerks of Probate Courts. — The Alabama statute authorizes the clerks of the probate courts to take acknowledgments in the name of the probate judge when he is absent. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Barclay, 108 Ala. 155. 501. 2. Acknowledgment before Officers of Other States — Alabama. — Hayes v. Banks, 132- Ala. 354. Georgia. — Crummey v. Bentley, 114 Ga. 746. Illinois. — Esker v. Heffernan, 159 111. 38; Hewitt v. General Electric Co., 164 111. 420 ; Ramsay v. People, 197 111. 594; Hewitt v. Watertown Steam Engine Co., 65 111. App. 153. Iowa. — Kruger v. Walker, 94 Iowa 506. Nebraska. — • Dorsey v. Conrad, 49 Neb. 443. New York — ■ Johnston v. Granger, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 54. North Carolina. — Barcello v. Hapgood, 118 N. Car. 712. Tennessee. — Huff v. Glenn, 101 Tenn. 112. Under the California Statute, when a deed is executed out of the state but within the United States, the acknowledgment or proof of its ex- ecution must be made before a notary public or justice of the peace having an official seal. Norris — Tan- ton v. Keller, 167 111. 139, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 626; In re Frahm, 120 Iowa 85. 6. Revocation by Subsequent Conveyances. — Connecticut Trust, etc., Co. v. Chase, 75 Conn. 683; Sharp v. McPherson, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. 181, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 634, 3 Ohio Dec. 468. Where a Legacy Consists of the Proceeds to Be Derived from the Sale of Real Estate, the sale of the property by the testator does not operate as an- ademption. Miller v. Malone, 109 Ky. 133- Where the Property Bequeathed Was Taken by Eminent Domain it was held that the devise was adeemed. Ametrano u. Downs, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 405. 627. 1. Pledge of Property Bequeathed. — Connecticut Trust, etc., Co. v. Chase, 75 Conn. 683. 5, Where the Testatrix Uses Part of the Be- queathed Property the legacy is pro tanto adeemed. In re Tillinghast, 23 R. I. 121. 9. Tanton v. Keller, 167 111. 139; In re Til- linghast, 23 R. I. 121 ; Rogers v. Rogers, 67 S. Car. 174, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 627. A Slight Alteration of the subject of the legacy does not constitute an ademption. See In re Frahm, 120 Iowa 85. Kentucky Statute. — Stat. Ky., § 2068, pro- vides that " the conversion in whole or in part of money or property or the proceeds of prop- erty advanced to one of the testator's heirs into other property or thing, with or without the assent of testator, shall not be an ademption unless a contrary intention on the part of the testator appear from the will, or by parol or other evidence." Franck v. Franck, 72 S. W. Rep. 275, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1790. 628. 5. See Re Moses, 85 L. T. N. S. 596. 629. 8. Prendregast v. Walsh, 58 N. J. Eq. 149 ; In re Tillinghast, 23 R. I. 121. 630. 1. General Rule in Case of Ademption by Acquisition. — Tanton v. Keller, 167 111. 139. 2, Batchelor's Succession, 48 La. Ann. 278. 85 630-644 ADEMPTION— ADMINISTRA TIVE. Vol. I. 630. Doctrine Confined to Specific Legacies. — See note 7. 631. Distinction Between Cases of Enforced and Voluntary Payments. — bee note I. V. Revival of Adeemed Legacies — subsequent Codicil confirming the Will. — See note 5. 633. ADEQUATE. — See note 2. 633. [AD HOC— See note 2a.] ADJACENT. — See note 4. 635. ADJOINING. — See note 1. 638. ADJOURN - ADJOURNMENT. — See note 1. 640. ADJUDGED.— See note 1. 641. ADJUDICATE — ADJUDICATION. — See note 1. ADJUST — ADJUSTMENT. — See note 3. 642. ADMINISTER. — See note 2. 643. ADMINISTRATION. — See note 3. 644. ADMINISTRATIVE. — See note 1. 630. 7. In re Bradley, 73 Vt. 253, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 630. 631. 1. Tanton v. Keller, 167 111. 139- 6. Tanton v. Keller, 167 111. 139- See Wilson v. Smith, 117 Fed. Rep. 707. 632. 2. Adequate Clause — Texas Code. — Gardner v. State, 40 Tex. Crira. 19 ; Farrar v. State, 29 Tex. App. 250. 633. 2a. Ad Hoc. — The translation " spe- cial " instead of the original ad hoc in rela- tion to a curator has very much the same mean- ing, and in the decisions the two words are used indifferently. Sallier v. Rosteet, 108 La. 378. 4. Hanifen v. Armitage, 117 Fed. Rep. 84s ; Yuba County v. Kate Hayes Min. Co., 141 Cal. 360; People v. Keechler, 194 111. 235, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 633 ; Hanover 1 F. Ins. Co. v. Stoddard, 52 Neb. 745- Adjacent in the Sense of Adjoining or Contiguous — "Adjacent to Each Other " — School Districts. — People v. Keechler, 194 111. 235. Adjacent to Railroad Line — Dependent on Facts of Case. — Denver, _etc, R. Co. v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 124 Fed. Rep. 156; Stone v. U. S., 167 U. S. 178, affirming (C. C. A.) 64 Fed. Rep. 667; U. S. v. St. Anthony R. Co., 192 U. S. 524; U. S. v. Bacheldor, 9 N. Mex. 16, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 634. Adjacent Districts. — Section 219 of the New Zealand Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, em- powers the construction of bridges by municipal councils, and provides that in certain circum- stances the local authority of an adjacent dis- trict should contribute to the cost. It was held that the word adjacent is not a word of pre- cise and uniform meaning, and the degree of proximity denoted is a question of circum- stances. The court below having decided that the appellant city was adjacent to the re- spondent borough, although there was a distance of over six miles between their boundaries and three other local divisions intervened, its dis- cretion was not interfered with. Wellington v. Lower Hutt, (1904) A. C. 773. 635. 1. Lewis v. Johnson, 90 Fed. Rep. 674, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 635. Distinguished from Adjacent. — Matthews v. Kimball, 70 Ark. 45 1 ; Hennessy v. Douglas County, 99 Wis. 129. Same — Local Assessments. — See Matthews v. Kimball, 70 Ark. 451, holding that the property to be adjoining need not touch. Same — Separated by Private Way. — Lehmer v. Horton, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 964. Synonymous with Contiguous. — Bent v. Glaenzer, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 569. Adjoining and Communicating. — A fire in- surance policy on a " frame mill building and all additions thereto adjoining and communicat- ing, occupied by the assured as a pail shop," covers a dry-house and engine-house connected therewith by a movable bridge, where such intention can be gathered from the language of the policy. Marsh v. Concord Mut. F. Ins. Co., 71 N. H. 253, affirming 70 N. H. 590. 63§. 1. Adjournment — Power of Court. — Kingsley v. Bagby, 2 Kan. App. 23. 640. 1. Synonymous with Adjudicate. — Western Assur. Co. v. Klein, 48 Neb. 904. 641. 1. Sans v. New York, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 559- Adjudication of Property — Louisiana Law. — See Burguieres' Succession, 104 La. 46. 3. Ruthven v. American F. Ins. Co., 102 Iowa 563, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 641 ; Miller v. Consolidated Patrons, etc., Mut. Ins. Co., 113 Iowa 211. Insurance Adjuster. — Roberts v. Insurance Co. of America, 94 Mo. App. 142. 642. 2. State v. Jones, 4 Penn. (Del.) 109. 643. 3. Distinguished from Curatorship. — State v. Greer, 101 Mo. App. 669. 644. 1. In People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537, the court said: "Anderson's Law Diction- ary defines administer to mean, to dispense, direct the application of ; as, to administer the law, justice. Bouvier speaks of adminis- trative as synonymous with executive; a min- isterial duty — one in which nothing is left to the discretion." 86 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. By A. W. Varian. 647. III. Courts or Admiralty in the United States — 1. District Courts. — See notes i, 2. 648. 3. State Courts — Common-law Remedies. — See notes 5, 7, 8. 649. IV. Jurisdiction — 2. Waters Within the Jurisdiction — b. Navi- gable WATERS ■ — (i) General Rule — Waters Navigable by Vessels Used in Commerce. — See note 6. 651. 653. 653. 654. note 7. See note 1. Canals Connecting Navigable Waters. — See note 2. (2) Internal Rivers and Waters. — See note 3. 3. Persons Subject to the Jurisdiction — General Rule. — See note 3. Not Bound to Interfere in Controversies Between Foreigners. — See note 4. See note 2. Controversies Between Foreign Seamen. — See note I. When Differences Adjusted by Consuls. — See note 4. Distribution of Proceeds of Sale of Foreign Vessel. — See note 6. Consideration that Should Influence Court in Exercising Jurisdiction or Not. — See 647. 1. Constitutional Grant. — The Neck, 138 Fed. Rep. 144. The constitutional grant of power to the courts of admiralty canot be enlarged by Congress. The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361. Nor by the state legislatures. The Mary F. Chisholm, 129 Fed. Rep. 814. See also Reli- ance Lumber Co. v. Rothschild, 127 Fed. Rep. 745; The Falls of Keltie, 114 Fed. Rep. 357- 2. The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17; Knapp v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606; The Falls of Keltie, 114 Fed. Rep. 357; Scatcherd Lumber Co. v. Rike, 113 Ala. 555. 59 Am. St. Rep. 147. 64§. 6. Conrad v. De Montcourt, 138 Mo. 311; Ransberry v. North American Transp., etc., Co., 22 Wash. 476 ; Gill v. North American T. & T. Co., (Wash. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 778; Reynolds v. Nielsc-n, 116 Wis. 483; Meunier Gun Co. v. Lehigh Valley Transp. Co., (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 386. Court of Equity. — The common-law remedy saved to suitors may be had in a court of equity, and the suitor is not limited to a com- mon-law court. Knapp v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638. 7. U. S. Mail Line Co. v. McCracken, (Ky. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 82. 8. The Glide, 167 U. S. 606. 648. 6. Kling v. St. Louis, etc., Packet Co., 101 Tenn. 99, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 650; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17- 651. 1. Scatcherd Lumber Co. v. Rike, 113 Ala. 555, 59 Am. St. Rep. 147- 2. The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17. 3. Waters Wholly Within a State or Only Navi- gable Therein. — Kling v. St. Louis, etc., Packet Co., 101 Tenn. 99, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 651. 653. 3. The admiralty courts of the United States will take jurisdiction in case of an injury to a seaman inflicted at sea on board a foreign ship, which has come within the jurisdiction of the court. Even if the libelant were an alien, it would be the duty of the admiralty court, which, for such cases, is a court of the world, to administer justice. Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. Rep. 505. American seamen on a foreign vessel may maintain an action for wages in a court of ad- miralty. The Alnwick, 132 Fed. Rep. 117. A citizen of the United States who is a party to a suit of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction cannot be deprived of the right to have such^ a suit adjudicated by a court upon which ad- miralty jurisdiction has been conferred pursu- ant to the Constitution. The Neck, 138 Fed. Rep. 144. 4. Discretion in Exercising Jurisdiction in Mat- ters Between Foreigners. — The Troop, (C. G A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 856; Fairgrieve v. Marine Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 686; Poup- pirt v. Elder Dempster Shipping Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 983, aMrmed (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 732. See also The Neck, 138 Fed. Rep. 144. 653. 2. Special Ground Should Appear to In- duce Court to Decline to Act. — Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280. 654. 1. Foreign Seamen. — Where one of the seamen is a citizen, the court will adjudi- cate the rights of other seamen similarly situ- ated. The Falls of Keltie, 114 Fed. Rep. 357. 4. Where One of the Seamen Is a Citizen, the fact that the consul of the country of the ship's flag has adjudicated a cause adversely to the seamen, will not prevent the court from taking jurisdiction. The Falls of Keltie, 114 Fed. Rep. 357; The Alnwick, 132 Fed. Rep. 117. 6. See The St. Johns, 1 01 Fed. Rep. 469. But see The Lady Furness, 84 Fed. Rep. 679. 7. See Fairgrieve v. Marine Ins. Co., (C. C. 87 655-660 ADMIRA L TV JURISDICTION. Vol. I. 655. note i. 656. General — 657. 658. 659. 660. Controls, What Vessels Are Within the Jurisdiction — What Is a V««el. — See Instances. — See notes 2, 4, 8, 1 3. 5. Subject-matter of Jurisdiction — «. MARITIME TORTS — (1) In - The Test of Jurisdiction in Tort. — See note 2. See note 3. Injury to Vessel by Bridge or Draw. — See note I. (2) Death by Wrongful Act. — See note 6. Where There Are State Statutes. — See note 2. libel — Statute Creating Lien. — See note 3. See note 2. b. Maritime Contracts — (i) General Principles — subject-matter See note 3. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 686; The Lady Furness, 84 Fed. Rep. 679; Goldman v. Furness, 101 Fed. Rep. 467. In The Alnwick, 132 Fed. Rep. 117, the court said : " The assumption of jurisdiction against foreign ships has been always a matter of discretion with the court, even when tb,e seamen are foreign also (The Troop, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 862), and this seems to be an instance for its exercise in the libelants' favor, they being American seamen and mak- ing a strong case for immediate relief." 655. 1. The True Criterion. — The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17. A Pile Driver Ib a Vessel. — Lawrence v. Flat- boat, 84 Fed. Rep. 200, affirmed Southern Log Cart, etc., Co. v. Lawrence, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 907. Contra. — Pile Driver E. O. A., 69 Fed. Rep. 1005. A House Boat is a subject of admiralty juris- diction. A Scow Without a Name, 80 Fed. Rep. 736. 2. Dredge. — McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 344, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 655 ; McMaster v. One Dredge, 95 Fed. Rep. 832. 4. Baft. — See Knapp v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, affirming 178 111. 107. 8. Canal-boat. — The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17. 13. Boat in Unfinished Condition. — McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 344, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 655. From the moment the keel of a vessel touches the water she becomes the subject of admiralty jurisdiction. Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424. Admiralty jurisdiction " does not extend to ships merely because they are ships, but to commerce and navigation, and to ships only because they are, and while they are, used in commerce and navigation." Olsen v. Birch, 133 Cal. 479. 656. 2. Locality of Tort the Criterion.— The Haxby, 95 Fed. Rep. 171, affirming 94 Fed. Rep. 1016; Homer Ramsdell Transp. Co. v. La Com- pagnie Generale Transatlantique, 182 U. S. 406 ; Dailey v. New York, 128 Fed. Rep. 796 ; The Strabo, 90 Fed. Rep. no, affirmed (C. C. A.) 98 Fed. Rep. 998; The Albion, I23 Fed. Rep. 189. Locality Is Not the Sole Test of jurisdiction, in cases of tort, but in conjunction^ therewith the tort must be committed by or against a vessel, or its owners, officers, or crew. Campbell v. Hackfeld, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 696, A Beacon Attached to the Soil. — The admi- ralty has jurisdiction over a suit by the govern- ment against a vessel for an injury, commenced and consummated, upon navigable water, to a beacon built on piles driven firmly into the bottom. The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, re- versing 122 Fed. Rep. 112. 657. 3. The Strabo, 90 Fed. Rep. 110; Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 646. t^or does it affect such jurisdiction that the libelant's right to redress was founded upon a contract, a part of which was to be per- formed on lajid. The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. Rep. 712. But see The Blackheath, 195 U. S, 361, where jt is said that there appears to be no reason why the fact that the injured property was afloat should have more weight in determining the jurisdiction than the fact that the cause of the injury was. 658. 1. The Test Is the Locality of the Thing Injured. — Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280. 6. The Harrisburg, folloived in Rundell v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. Rep. 366, (C. C. A.) 100 Fed. Rep. 655; The Glendale, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 633; Middle- ton v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantic^, (C. C. A.) 100 Fed. Rep. 866. 659. 2. Right of Action Conferred by State Statute. — The Northern Queen, 117 Fed. Rep. 906 ; The Glendale, yy Fed. Rep. 906, affirmed (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 633 ; Stern v.' La Com- pagnie Generale Transatlantique, no Fedj. Rep. 996. 3. McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 344, citing 1 Am. and E^g. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 658, 659; The Glendale, 77 Fed. Rep. 906 ; The Oregon, 73. Fed. Rep. 846, 66 affirming 67 N. Y. App. Div. 625. North Carolina. — Webb v. Atkinson, 124 N. Car. 447 ; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 130 N. Car. 161; Avery v. Stewart, 136 N. Car. 426. North Dakota. — O. S. Paulson Mercantile Co. v. Seaver, 8 N. Dak. 215. Ohio. — Geiger v. State, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 742. Pennsylvania. — Connolly v. Shannon, 3 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 247. Tennessee. — Low v. State, 108 Tenn. 127. Texas. — Penner v. Britton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 301 ; Simonds v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 300 ; Williford v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 414; Shelburn v. McCrocklin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 329; Mitchell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 572; Gilford v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 692. Utah. — State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 671-674; Burraston v. Nephi First Nat. Bank, 22 Utah 328. Vermont. — Murray v. Mattison, 67 Vt. 553; State v. Magoon, 68 Vt. 289 ; Dover v. Win- chester, 70 Vt. 418. Washington. — State v. McCauley, 17 Wash. 88. Declarations of a Party Not in Interest — Ala- bama. — Cade v. Floyd, 120 Ala. 484. California. — Liebrandt v. Sorg, 133 Cal. 571 ; Bell v. Staacke, 141 Cal. 186. Colorado. — ■ Denver v. Cochran, 17 Colo. App. 72. Florida. — ■ Long v. State, 44 Fla. 1 34. Georgia. — Whelchel v. Gainesville, etc., Electric R. Co., 116 Ga. 431. Indiana. — Phenix Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 23 Ind. App. 509. Kansas. — • Broughan v. Broughan, 62 Kan. 724. Kentucky. — Barkley v. Bradford, 100 Ky. 304; Norfleet v. Logan, (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 713; Boltz v. Miller, 64 S. W. Rep. 630, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 991. Massachusetts. — Graham v. Middleby, 185 Mass. 349. Michigan. — Haines v. Gibson, 115 Mich- 131 ; National Lumberman's Bank v. Miller, 131 Mich. 564, 100 Am. St. Rep. 623, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 435. New York. — Buchanan v. Foster, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 542 ; Whitman v. Egbert, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 374; Rose v. Wells, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 593 ; Rothchild v. Schwarz, ( Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 521 ; Rutherford v. Kr-ause, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 172; Shidlovsky v. Gorman, 51 N. Y. Apo. Div. 253 ; Kelly v. Theiss, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 146 ; Havens v. Gil- mour, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 84. Ohid. — Aidt v. State, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 337- Pennsylvania. — Wonsetler v. Wonsetler, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 321 ; Stewart's Estate, 3 Pa. Dist. 747. Tennessee. — Shell v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 909. Texas. — McCallon v. Cohen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 973 ; Smith v. Merchants, etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 1038; Kershner v. Latimer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 237. Utah. — Ewing v. Keith, 1 6 Utah 312; Church of Jesus Christ v. Watson, 25 Utah 45 ; Jensen v. McCornick, 26 Utah 142. Washington. — McNicol v. Collins, 30 Wash. 318. Wyoming. — Hester v. Smith, 5 Wyo. 291. Where the Party Makes a Reply Wholly or Par- tially. — State v. Burns, 124 Iowa 207 (to same effect as Com. v. Kenney, 12 Met. (Mass.) 237). The Possession of Documents. — George A. Ful- ler Co. v. Doyle, 87 Fed. Rep. 687 ; Turner v. Turner, 98 Md. 22. Unanswered letters. — Packer v.. U. S., 106 Fed. Rep. 906, 46 C. C. A. 35 ; Biggs v. Stueler, 93 Md. 100; Lee-Clark-Andreesen Hardware Co. v. Yankee, 9 Colo. App. 443 ; State Bank v. McCabe, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 20, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 846; Hand v. Howell, 61 N. J. L. 142, affirmed 61 N. J. L. 694, 43 Atl. Rep. 1098 ; Healy v. Malcolm, 77 N. Y. App, Div. 69. Compare Wilmoth v. Hamilton,, (C. C. A.) 127 Fed. Rep. 48 ; Murray v. East End Imp. Co., 60 S. W. Rep. 648, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1477 ; White v. White, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 560. There may be circumstances under which statements in unanswered letters are admissible as admissions. Morris v. Norton, 75 Fed. Rep. 912, 43 U. S. App. 739; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co., 156 Ind. 665. 673. 1. Essentials of Admissions Inferable from Silence and Acquiescence. — G°wen v. Bush,, 76 Fed. Rep. 349, 40 U. S. App. 349 ; Simmons v. State, 115 Ga. 574; Urdangen v. Doner, 122 Iowa 533 ; Thayer v. Usher, 98 Me. 468 ; Cheney v. Cheney, 162 Mass. 591 ; People v. Koerner, 154 N. Y. 355; Tinker v. New York, etc., R. Co., 92 Hun (N. Y.) 269; Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. y. Schaefer, (County Ct.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 625 ; Akers v. Overbeck, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 198; Schilling y. Union R, Co.,. 77 N. Y. App. Div. 74; Cabiness v. Holland, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 6.3 ; State v. Epstein, 25 R. I. 131 ; Jackson v. Builders' Wood- Working Co., 91 Hun (N. Y.) 435; Josephi v. Furnish/ 27 Oregon 260. Defendant being hard of hearing, whether or not he heard the declarations made in his pres- ence is a question for the jury. State_ v. Dex- ter, 115 Iowa 678. 674, 2. Circumstances Must Call for Some Ac- tion — Alabama. — Peck v. Ryan, no Ala. 336., California. — People v. Amaya, 134 Cal. 531. Georgia. — Chapman v. State, 109 Ga. 157, citing^ 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of La.w (2d ed.), 672-674. See also the following cases : Brants ley v. State, 115 Ga.. 229 ; Graham, v. State, 118 Ga. 807. 92 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 675 675. note 3. II. To Whom Admissions May Be Made. — See note 1. III. By Whom Admissions May Be Made — 1. Generally. See Indiana. — Miller v. Dill, 149 tnd. 326. Kentucky. — Porter v. Com., 61 S. W. Rep. 16, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1657. Louisiana. — State v. Carter, 106 La. 407. Maryland. — Turner v. Turner, 98 Md. 22. ' Massachusetts. — Traders' Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 167 Mass. 315. Missouri. — State v. Foley, 144 Mo. 600. New York. — People v. Koerner, 154 N. Y. 355 ; Gerding v. Funk, 169 N. Y. 572, affirming 48 N. Y. App. Div. 603 ; People v. Bissert, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 118, affirmed 172 N. Y. 643 ; People v. Young, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 9 ; Putnam v. Lin- coln Safe Deposit Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 13, reversing (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 738- Ohio. — State v. Iden, 5 Ohio Dec. 627. Pennsylvania. — Huston's Estate, 167 Pa. St. 217. Texas. — Orient Ins. Co. v. Moffatt, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 385 ; Guinn v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 257; Funderburk v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 393 ; Welch v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 50. Statement Made in the Course of Judicial Hear- ing. — Collier v. Dick, m Ala. 263; Thayer v. Usher, 98 Me. 468; Keith v. Marcus, 181 Mass. 377 ; Com. v. Burton, 183 Mass. 461 ; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102; Horan v. Byrnes, 72 N. H. 93, 101 Am. St. Rep. 670; Caseday v. Lind- strom, 44 Oregon 309 ; Com. v. Zorambo, 205 Pa. St. 109. Compare Connell v. McNett, 109 Mich. 329. If the defendant had the opportunity or the right to contradict such statements and failed to do so, they are admissible against him. State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678. Among Merchants, if an Account Current Be Sent. — Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney, 58 111. App. 563 ; Weigle v. Brautigam, 74 111. App. 285 ; Pabst Brewing Co. y. Lueders, 107 Mich. 41 ; Hendrix v. Kirtcpatrick, 4S Neb. 670. The Entries in a Book. — Osmun v. Winters, 30 Oregon 177. Declarations by a Stranger. — People v. Koer- ner, 154 N. Y. 355. See Vaughn v. State, 130 Ala. 18. Contra, Kelly v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 641. Husband and Wife. — Statements made by a husband against his wife's interest, to a third person in her presence, do not call for an an- swer. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 126 Mo. 486. 675. 1. Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310; Geraghty v. Randall,. 18 Colo. App. 194; Bar- wick v. Alderman, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 13; Miller v. McDowell, (Kan. 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. ioi ; Beaudette v. Gagne, 87 Me. 574; Notara v. De KamalariSj (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 337 ; Downey v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 541 ; Knapp v. Wirig, 72 Vt. 334; Jones v. Western Mfg. Co., 27 Wash. 136. An admission of indebtedness made to a stranger is not evidence of an account stated, though it would be if made to the creditor. Bee v. Tiefney, 58 111- App. 552- Admissions made to a stranger by one who had but recently attained her majority, relative to and in ratification of a deed made by her while a minor, were held inadmissible, in Sayles v. Christie, 187 III. 420. 3. Admissions Against Interest — United States. — Hardy v. U. S., 186 U. S. 224; St. Louis Fourth Nat. Bank v. Albaugh, 188 U. S. 734, affirming 107 Fed. Rep. 819, 46 C. C. A. 655 ; Zachry v. Nolan, 66 Fed. Rep. 467, 30 U. S. App. 244 ; The New Foundland, 89 Fed. Rep. 510; Farnsworth v. Nevada Co., 102 Fed. Rep. 578, 42 C. C. A. 509 ; Westall v. Osborne, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 282; Dimmick v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 825. Alabama. — Frank v. Thompson, 105 Ala. 211; Troy v. Rogers, 113 Ala. 131; McSweah v. State, 113 Ala. 661, 21 So. Rep. 211; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627; Love v. State, 124 Ala. 82 ; King v. Franklin, 132 Ala. 599 ; Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310; Carter v. Fulgham, 134 Ala. 238; Mann v. State, 134 Ala. 1 ; Moore v. Crosthwait, 135 Ala. 272; Meadows v. State, 136 Ala. 67 ; Jones v. State, 137 Ala. 12 ; Thayer v. State, 138 Ala. 39; Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 80. Arkansas. — Graves v. Graves, 70 Ark. 541. California. — People v. Knowlton, 122 Cal. 357 ; Macomber v . Bigelow, 126 Cal. 9 ; People v. Harlan, 133 Cal. 16; People v. Shears, 133 Cal. 154; People v. Joy, 135 Cal. xix, 66 Pac. Rep. 964; Keith v. Electrical Engineering Co., 136 Cal. 178; Roche v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co., 140 Cal. 563 ; People v. Farrington, 140 Cal. 656; People v. Scalamiero, 143 Cal. 343; People v. Moran, 144 Cal. 48 ; People v. Jan John, 144 Cal. 284. Colorado. — Geraghty v. Randall, 18 Colo. App. 194; Mclntire v. Schiffer, 31 Colo. 246; Everett v. Hart, (Colo. App. 1904) J7 Pac. Rep. 254- Cdnnecticut. — State v. Willis, 71 Conn. 293 ; Starr Burying Ground Assoc, v. North Larie Cemetery Assoc, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 467. Delaware. — Sharps. Swayne, 1 Penn. (Del.) 210 ; State v. Magnell, 3 Penn. (Del.) 307. District of Columbia. — Sinclair v. District of Columbia, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336. Florida. — Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184; Jones v. State, 44 Fla. 74 ; Anthony v. State, 44 Fla. 1. Georgia. — Churchman v. Robinson, 93 Ga. 731 ; Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 94 Ga. 356; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 9, 65 Am. St. Rep. 277; Shaw v. State, 102 Ga. 660; Perry- man v. Pope, 102 Ga. 502 ; Ernest v. Merritt, 107 Ga. 61 ; Ingram v. Hilton, etc., Lumber Co., 108 Ga. T94; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Fitzgerald, 108 Ga. 507; Howard v. State, 109 Ga. 137; Taylors. State, no Ga. 150; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Mosely, 112 Ga. 914; Sanders v. State, 113 Ga. 267; Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186; Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320. Idaho. — Work v. Kinney, 8 Idaho 771. Illinois. — Miller v. Meers, 155 111. 284; Ger- man Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 188 111. 165, 80 Am. St. Rep. 172; Lang v. Metzger, 206 111. 473, 93 675 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. affirming 101 111. App. 380 ; Gottschalk v. Jar- muth, 69 111. App. 623 ; Burke v. Hindman, 70 111. App. 496; Webster Mfg. Co. v. Schmidt, 77 111. App. 49; Salter v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., 77 111. App. 97 ; Evanston v. Clark, 77 111. App. 234; Wabash R. Co. v. Farrell, 79 HI- App. 508; Ellwood Mfg. Co. v. Faulkner, 87 111. App: 294 ; Clark v. Smith, 87 111. App. 409 ; German Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 89 111. App. 469; Himrod Coal Co. v. Adack, 94 111. App. 1 ; Han- sen v. Wayer, 101 111. App. 212; Second Bor- rowers', etc., Bldg. Assoc, v. Cochrane, 103 111. App. 29 ; Deuterman v. Ruppel, 103 111. App. 106. Indiana. — Keesling v. Powell, 149 Ind. 372 ; Fox v. Cox, 20 Ind. App. 61 ; Pritchett v. Sheri- dan, 29 Ind. App. 81. Indian Territory. — Eddings u. Boner, 1 In- dian Ter. 173. Iowa. — Nagle v. Fulmer, 98 Iowa 585 ; Smay v. Etnire, 99 Iowa 149 ; State v. Millmeier, 102 Iowa 692 ; Steele Smith Grocery Co. v. Potthast, 109 Iowa 413; Bartlett -a. Falk, no Iowa 346; Bullard v. Bullard, 112 Iowa 423; Jamison v. Jamison, 113 Iowa 720; State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678; Butterfield v. Kirtley, 115 Iowa 207; Rounds v. Alee, 116 Iowa 34s; Frick v. Ka- baker, 116 Iowa 494; Lundy v. Lundy, 118 Iowa 445; Wright v. Reed, 118 Iowa 333; State 1. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660; Kuh, etc., Co. v. Gluck- lick, 120 Iowa 504; State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa 507; Leyner v. Leyner, 123 Iowa 185; State v. Worthen, 124 Iowa 408. Kansas. — Pope v. Bowzer, 1 Kan. App. 727 ; Walker v. Brantner, 59 Kan. 117; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Potter, 60 Kan. 808 ; Brown v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666 ; Home-Riverside Coal Min. Co. v. Fores, 64 Kan. 39 ; Miller v. McDowell, (Kan. 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 101. Kentucky. — Jackson v. Com., 100 Ky. 239, 66 Am. St. Rep. 336 ; Collins v. Wilson, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 33; Gaines v. Deposit Bank, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 438; Barclay v . Com., 76 S. W. Rep. 4, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 463 ; Powers v. Powers, 78 S. W. Rep. 152, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1468; Seaborn v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 223. Louisiana. — State v. Picton, 51 La. Ann. 624; Trouilly's Succession, 52 La. Ann. 276. Maryland. — Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383 ; Jarrell v. Felton, 86_Md. 691. Massachusetts. — Com. v. Gay, 162 Mass. 458; Putnam v. Gunning, 162 Mass. 552; Rum- rill v. Ash, 169 Mass. 341; Com. v. Williams, 171 Mass. 461 ; Com. v. Chance, 174 Mass. 24s; Saunders v. Dunn, 175 Mass. 164; Cooley v. Collins, 186 Mass. 507. Michigan. — Reiser v. Portere, 106 Mich. 102; Ford v. Savage, in Mich. 144; Mead v. Randall, n 1 Mich. 268; Baxter v. Reynolds, 112 Mich. 471 ; Sherrard -u. Cudney, 134 Mich. 200, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 437; Rhode v. Metro- politan L. Ins. Co., 129 Mich. 112, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 888; People v. Quimby, 134 Mich. 625, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 618. Minnesota. — Couch v. Steele, 63 Minn. 504; Towle v. Sherer, 70 Minn. 312; Davis v. Ham- ilton, 88 Minn. 64 ; Dixon v. Union Iron-works, 90 Minn. 492. Mississippi. — Bunckley v. State, 77 Miss. 540 ; Southern R. Co. v. McLellan, 80 Miss. 700 ; Myer, etc., Hardware Co. v. Spann, (Miss. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 177. Missouri. — Boggess v. Boggess, 127 Mo. 305 ; Taliaferro v. Evans, 160 Mo. 380 ; Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 126 Mo. 486; F. O. Sawyer Paper Co. v. Mangan, 68 Mo. App. 1 ; Jobe v. Weaver, 77 Mo. App. 665 ; State v. Dean, 85 Mo. App. 473; Waddell v. Waddell, 87 Mo. App. 216; Obuchon v. Boyd, 92 Mo. App. 412. Montana. — Hughes o. Rowan, 27 Mont. 500. Nebraska. — Lowe v. Vaughan, 48 Neb. 651; Aultman v. Martin, 49 Neb. 103 ; Zobel v. Bauer- sachs, 55 Neb. 20 ; Churchill v. White, 58 Neb, 22, 76 Am. St. Rep. 64 ; Miller v. Nicodemus, 58 Neb. 352; Aliens. Hall, 64 Neb. 256; Duna- fon v. Barber, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 198; Seyfer v. Otoe County, 66 Neb. 566; Quinby v. Ayres, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 464; Carlson v. Holm, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 1 125. New Hampshire. — State v. Wright, 68 N. H. 351- New Jersey. — De Hart v. Creveling, 57 N. J. L. 642. New York. — Armour v. Gaff ey, 165 N. Y. 630, affirming 30 N. Y. App. Div. 121 ; Card v. Moore, 173 N. Y. 598, affirming 68 N. Y. App. Div. 327 ; Barrett v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 N. Y. 663; Terwilliger v. Industrial Ben. Assoc, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 320 ; Swan v. Morgan, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 378; Newcombe v. Hyman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 25 ; Laidlaw v. Sage, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 375 ; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 84; Reed v. McCord, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 381 ; Wolf v. Di Lorenzo, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 323 ; Notara v. De Kamalaris, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 337; Horowitz v. Pakas, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 520 ; Eppens, etc., Co. v. Littlejohn, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 22 ; Merkle v. Beidleman, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 14; Cocheu v. Methodist Protestant Church, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 239 ; Cociaricich v. Vazzoler, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 462 ; Weissboum v. Solomon, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 554; Leary &. Corvin, 63' N. Y. App. Div. 151 ; Martin v. Farrell, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 177; Hicks v. Monarch Cycle Mfg. Co., 68 N. Y. App. Div. 134; Matter of Woodward, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 286 ; Matter of Suess, (Sur- rogate Ct.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 459 ; Collins v. McGuire, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 443 ; Egyptian Flag Cigarette Co. v. Comisky, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 236; People v. Bushnell, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 5 ; Maier v. Rebstock, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 587. North Carolina. — Scarboro v. Scarboro, 122 N. Car. 234; State v. Utley, 132 N. Car. 1022; State v. Register, 133 N. Car. 746. Ohio. — Neifeld v. State, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 246. Oregon. — State v. Robinson, 32 Oregon 43; Anderson v. Adams, 43 Oregon 621 ; Good v. Smith, 44 Oregon 578. Pennsylvania. — Davidson v. Young, 167 Pa. St. 265 ; McCarty v. Scanlon, 187 Pa. St. 495 ; Lynch v. Troxell, 207 Pa. St. 162 ; Humberston v. Detwiler, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 587 ; Ravenswood Bank v. Reneker, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 192; Com. v. Bunnell, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 51. Rhode Island. — Fay v. Feeley, 18 R. I. 715; State v. Mowry, 21 R. I. 376. South Carolina. — McGahan v. Crawford, 47 S. Car. 566; State v. Wideman, 68 S. Car. 119. South Dakota. — Commercial Bank v. Jack- son, 9 S. Dak. 605. 94 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 675 Tennessee. — Lee v. Johnson, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 183; Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Tenn. 410. Texas. — Tuggle v. Hughes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 61 ; Branch v. Makeig, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 399 ; Smithael v. Smith, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 446 ; Barbee v. Spivey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 345 ; Waller v. Leonard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 799, 89 Tex. 507 ; Gaines v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 331 ; St. Louis South- western R. Co. v. Bishop, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 504; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Fisher, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 63 ; American F. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 395 ; Simpson v. Edens, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 235 ; Harvey v. Harvey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 185 ; Shelburn v. McCrocklin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 329 ; Henry v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 306 ; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 794; Russell v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 590 ; Willis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 826 ; Fant v. Andrews, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 909; Mathis v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 549 ; Green v. Gresham, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 601 ; Roach v. Burgess, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 803 ; Lord v. New York L. Ins. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 139 ; Spiars v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 533 ; Merrell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 979 ; Over v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 535 ; Joy v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 433 ; Smith v. Inter- national, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 556 ; Nicks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 35 ; Crawford v. Abbey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 346; Consumers' Cotton Oil Co. v. Jonte, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 847; Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Lovelady, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) So S. W. Rep. 867 ; Matthews v. Eppstein, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 882; Huling v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1006. Utah. — State v. Neel, 23 Utah 541; Boyle v, Ogden City, 24 Utah 443. Virginia. — Henderson v. Com., 98 Va. 794. Vermont. — Hubbard v. Moore, 67 Vt. 532 ; Burnham v. Courser, 69 Vt. 183 ; Dover v. Winchester, 70 Vt. 418 ; Knapp v. Wing, 72 Vt. 334. Washington. — Hart v. Pratt, 19 Wash. 560. West Virginia. — ■ Crothers v. Crothers, 40 W. Va. 169 ; State v. Sheppard, 49 W. Va. 582 ; State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132. Wisconsin. — Klatt v. N. C. Foster Lumber Co., 92 Wis. 622 ; McGowan v. Supreme Ct., etc., 104 Wis. 173; State v. McDonald, 108 Wis. 8, 81 Am. St. Rep. 878; Northern Elec- trical Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Wagner Co., 108 Wis. 584; Bell v. Gund, no Wis. 271; Collins v. State, 115 Wis. 596; Voelkel v. Supreme Tent, etc., 116 Wis. 202, 92 N. W. Rep. 1135. Thus Declarations in Disparagement of a Per- son's Title. — Diel v. Stegner, 56 Mo. App. 535 ; State v. Henderson, 86 Mo. App. 482; New Jersey Zinc, etc., Co. v. Lehigh Zinc, etc., Co., 59 N. J. L. 189. See also Long v. Moore, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 363- Where the statute of limitations has perfected the title of an adverse holder of land, his sub- sequent admissions that he was not holding adversely are not competent evidence against him. Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735. Advancements — Gifts. — Garner v. Taylor, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 758. Declarations by a Tenant for Life. — A widow holding land as a part of her dower cannot make admissions with respect to the title which will bind the heirs or their grantees. Maranvan v. Troutman, 71 S. W. Rep. 861, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1539. Where a woman's second husband, surviving her, brings suit for partition of lands devised by her first husband to her for life with re- mainder to his children, alleging that she did not accept the will, her declarations made at the time of the execution of the will and the probate thereof, and before and after her sec- ond marriage, were held admissible against him. Cook v. Lawson, 63 Kan. 854. They Must Be Against Interest at the Time. — Farrow v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 109 Ala. 448 ; Ikard v. Minter, (Indian Ter. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 852 ; Johnson v. Cole, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 606. Marriage. — Com. v. Haylow, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 541 ; Perrine v. Kohr, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 36. Divorce. — In a suit for slander by an aban- doned wife against her husband, his declaration that he had procured a divorce in another state was held admissible against him. State v. Misenheimer, 123 N. Car. 758. Infants cannot make admissions against their interest which are binding on them, or author- ize others to make such admissions. Knights Templars', etc., L. Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 111. 550. Insane Persons. — The admissions of a party are not necessarily incompetent by reason of the fact that she is under guardianship as in- sane. Hart v. Miller, 29 Ind. App. 222. Time and Place Need Not Be Specified in order to render admissions against interest admis- sible. Teller v. Ferguson, 24 Colo. 432. Self-serving Declarations ; Bes Gestae — England. — Hudson v. The Barge Swiftsure, 82 L. T. N. S. 389. United States. — North American Ace. Assoc. v. Woodson, 64 Fed. Rep. 689, 24 U. S. App. 364 ; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Ashley, 67 Fed. Rep. 209, 28 U. S. App. 375 ; Gowen v. Bush, 76 Fed. Rep. 349, 40 U. S. App. 349 ; Cross Lake Logging Co. v. Joyce, 83 Fed. Rep. 989, 55 U. S. App. 221 ; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Logan, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 637; Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 Fed. Rep. 344, 47 C. C. A. 384 ; Lake County v. Keene Five-Cents Sav. Bank, 108 Fed. Rep. 505, 47 C. C. A. 464; Edwards v. Bates County, 117 Fed. Rep. 526; U. S. v. Gentry, 119 Fed. Rep. 70, 55 C. C. A. 658. Alabama. — Larkin v. Baty, 111 Ala. 303; Guntersville Bank v. Webb, 108 Ala. 132; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627; Linnehan v. State, 120 Ala. 293; Bodine v. State, 129 Ala. 106; Harkness v. State, 129 Ala. 71 ; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Jones, 133 Ala. 217; Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63, 92 Am. St. Rep. 17; Jerni- gan v. Clark, 134 Ala. 313; Holmes v. State, 136 Ala. 80 ; Moore v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 137 Ala. 495; Sherrill v. State, 138 Ala. 3; Couch v. Couch, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 405 ; Hartsell v. Masterson, 132 Ala. 275. 95 67.1 ADMISSIONS. Vbl. I. Arkansas. — Benhett v. State, 70 Ark. 43- California. — Shamp v. White, 106 Cal. 220 ; Rogers i/. Schulenburg, m Cal. 281; Frank i/. Pennie, 117 Cal. 254; People v. Prather, 120 Cal. 660; Williams v. Casebeer, 126 Cal. 77; Smith v. Glenn, 129 Cal. xviii, 62 Pac. Rep. 180; Herd v. Tuohy, 133 Cal. 55; Ryan v. Pacific Axle Co., 136 Cal. xx, 68 Pac. Rep. 498; Rulofson v. Billings, 140 Cal. 452. Colorado. — Haines v. Christie, 28 Colo. 502 ; Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Mondy, 18 Cdlo. App. 395- Connecticut. — Smith v. Phipps, 65 Conn. 302 ; McCarrick a. Kealy, 70 Conn. 642 ; Me- chanic's Bank v. Woodward, 73 Conn. 470; Doolan v. Wilson, 73 Conn. 446. District of Columbia. — Richardson v. Van Auken, 5 App. Cas. (D. -C.) 209. Florida. — Hood v. French, 37 Fla. 117; Fields v. State, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 185. Georgia. — Birmingham, etc.; Air-Line R., etc-., Co. v. Walker, tot Ga. 183; Cody v. Gaihesville First Nat. Bank, 103 Ga. 789; Fraser v. State, 112 Ga. 13; Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 115 Ga. 635; Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186; Dozier v. McWhorter, 117 Ga. 786. Illinois. — Miller v. Meers, 155 111. 284; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ketinelly, 170 111. 508; Lambfe v. Manning, 171 111. 612; Meyer v. Meyer, 64 111. App. 175; First Nat. Bank tj. Sanford, 83 111. App. 58 ; Cook v. American Luxfer Prism Co., 93 111. App. 299 ; Bishop v. Bishop, 95 111. App. 53 ; Stock v. Seegar,- 99 111. App. 353; Frike v. Orr, 109 111. App. 200; Satiitary Dist. v. Pearce, ito 111. App. 592. Indiana. — Garr v. Shaffer, 139 Ind. 191; Douglass v. State, 18 Ind. App. 289 ; Ewing v. Bass, '149' Ind. i ; St. Joseph Hydraulic Co. v. Globe Tissue Raper Co., 156 Ind. 665. Iowa. — Smith v. Dawley, 92 Iowa 312; Cor- bel v: Beard, 92, Iowa 360; Allbright v. Hannah, 103 Iowa 98; Moehh v. Moehh, 105 Iowa 710; Owen v. Christensen, 106 Iowa 394; Iowa Leather; etc., Co. v. Hathaway, (Iowa 1899) 78 N. W. Rep. 193 ; Thilmany v. Iowa Paper Bag Co., 108 Iowa 357, 75 Am. St. Rep. 259 ; Creager v. Johnson; 114 Iowa 249; Luke v. Koenen; 120 Iowa 103; Gdugh v. Loomis, 123 Iowa 642. Kansas. — Topeka v. High, 6 Kan. App. 162; Broughan v. Broughan, 10 Kan. App. 575, 61 Pac. Rep. 874 ; State v. Gillespie, 62 Kan. 469 ; Broughan v. Broughan, 62 Kan. 724 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Logan, 65 Kan. 748. Kentucky. — Dixon v. Labry, (Ky. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 21 ; Eve v. Say lor, (Ky. i8d8) 44 S. W. Rep; 355; Marin v. Cavanaugh, no Ky. 776 ; New York L. Ins: Co. v. Johnson, 72 S. W. Rep. 762, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1867 ; Proctor v. Proctor, (Ky. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 272. Louisiana. — State v. Harris, 107 La. 196. Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 8i Md. 371; Johnson v. Johnson, 96 Md. 144. ■Massachusetts. — -Thayer v. Loftibard, 165 Mass. 174; Huebener v. Childs, 180 Mass. 483; Hutchinson v. Nay, 183 Mass. 355; Graham v. Middleby, 185 Mass. 349. Michigan. — Mead v. Randall, in Mich. 268; Schulz v. Schulz, 113 Mich. 502; Rose v. Lbckerby, 116 Mich. 277; Supreme Tent, etc., v. Port Huron Sav. Bank, (Mich. 1904) iod N. W. Rep. 898; Lbrd v. Detroit Sav. Batik, , 132 Mich. 510, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 7b6. Minnesota. — Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327; 61 Am. St. Rep. 419. Mississippi. — Memphis Grocery Co. v. Val- ley Land Co., (Miss. 1895) 17 So. Rep. 232. Missouri. — Preston v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 132 Mo. in ; State v. Strong, 153 Mo. 548; Miller v. Quick, 158 Mo. 495; State v. Blitz, 171 Mo. 530; State v. Dunn, 179 Mo. 95; Diel v. Stegner, 56 Mo. App. 535 ; Blaslarid-Parcels- Jordon Shoe Co. v. Hicks, 70 Mo. App. 301 ; Bosard v. Powell, 79 Mo. App. 184; Waddell v. Waddell, 87 Mo. App. 216; Hall v. Jennings, 87 Mo. App. 627 ; American Valley Co. v. Wyman, 92 Mo. App. 294 ; Armstrong v. John- son, 93 Mo. App. 492; Johnson v. Burks, 103 Mb. App. 221 ; Vermillion v. Parsons, 101 Mb. App. 602 ; Brown v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., (Mo. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 1122; Speer v. Burlingame, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 322 ; State v. Moore, 156 Mo. 204. Nebraska. — Zobel v. Bauersachs, 55 Neb. 20; Boice v. Palmer, 55' Neb. 389 ; Smith v. State, 61 Neb. 296; Bennett v. Taylor, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 669. New Hampshire. — Murray v. Bdston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 32, 10 1 Am. St. Rep. 660. New Jersey. — Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. L. 614. New York. — Wangher v. Grimm, 169 N. Y. 421, affirming Grimm v. Grimm, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 626; Scheir v. Quirin, 177 N. Y. 568, af- firming 77 N. Y. App. Div. 624; Commercial Bank v. Bolton, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 547; Kelly v. Cbhoes Knitting Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 156; Gilroy v. Loftus, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 317; Suffolk County v. Shaw, 21 N. Y. App; Div. 146 ; Levison v. Seybold Mach. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 327; White v. McNulty, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 173; Granger v. American Brewing Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 701 ; Travis v. Stewart, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 240 ; - Donohue v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 53 N. Y. App. Div. 348 ; Toal v. New York, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 18; Healy v. Malcolm, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 69 ; Diamond v. Wheeler, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 58; Union Trust Co. v. Leighton, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 568 ; Mowbray v. Gould, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 255 ; Havens v. Gilmour, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 84 ; Grant v. Pratt, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 490 ; Griffin v. Train, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 16, affirming (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 290. North Carolina. — Pettiford v. Mayo, 117 N. Car. 27 ; Johnson v. Armfield, 130 N. Car. 575 ; Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N. Car. 348; Jbnes v. Warren, 134 N. Car. 390. Ohio. — Atkinson v. Bond Hill, 2 Ohio Dec. 48, 1 Ohio N. P. 166. Oregon. — Ladd v. Hawkes, 41 Oregon 247 ; Tobin v. Portland Flouring Mills Co., 41 Ore- gon 269; State v. Smith, 43 Oregon 109; Goltra v. Penlaiid, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 129. Pennsylvania. — Keefer v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 201 Pa. St. 448; Philadelphia v. Goweh, 202 Pa. St. 453 ; Thomas v. Miller, 165 Pa. St. 216; Dempsey v. Dobson, 174 Pa. St. 122, 52 Am. St. Rep. 816; Selig v. Rehfuss, 195 Pa. St. 200; Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 193; Moulton v. O'Bi-yan, 17 Pa. Super. Ct g6 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 675 593; Siebelist v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 221 ; Sinsheimer v. Hartman, ig Pa. Super. Ct. 494; Price v. Beach, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 291. Rhode Island. — White v. Berry, 24 R. I. 74 ; State v. Epstein, 25 R. I. 131 ; Bowen v. White, 26 R. I. 69. South Carolina. — Greer 0. Latimer, 47 S. Car. 176; State v. Green, 61 S. Car. 12. South Dakota. — Aldous v. Olverson, (S. Dak. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 917. Tennessee. — Colquit v. State, 107 Tenn. 381. Texas. — Byers v. Wallace, 87 Tex. 503 ; .•Etna Ins. Co. v. Eastman, 95 Tex. 34 ; Jami- son v. Dooley, (Tex. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 780; Haley v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep.' 382 ; Boehringer v. A. B. Richards Medicine Co., 9 Tex. Civ. App. 284 ; Nix v. Cole, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 561 ; Kohlberg v. Fett, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 944 ; Ward v. Gibbs, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 287 ; Phillips v. Sherman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 187 ; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ritter, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 482; Schott v. Pellerim, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 944 ; Henry v. Bounds, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 120; Downey v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 541 ; Chestnut v. Chism, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 23 ; City Nat. Bank v. Martin-Brown Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 52 ; Largent v. Beard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 90; Turner v. Sealock, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 594; Lewis v. Bergess, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 252 ; Hockaday v. Wortham, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 419 ; Morgan v. Butler, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 470 ; Lindsey v. White, (Tex. Civ. App. 190T) 61 S. W. Rep. 438; Cole v. Horton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 503 ; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 279 ; Watts v. Dubois, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 698 ; Murphy v. Magee, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 1002; McCowen v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 46 ; Over v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 535 ; Tenzler v- Tyrrell, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 443 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Schilling, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 417; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Tar- water, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 937 ; Donaldson v. Dobbs, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1084 ; Golin v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 90 ; Bailey v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 992-Bratt v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 624; Merritt v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 359 ; Padron v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 548; Little v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 551 ; Cox v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 145 ; Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 538 ; Foster v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 29 ; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 8-r S. W. Rep. 936; Chenault v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 971. Utah. — Sullivan v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 122; White u. Pease, 15 Utah 170; Salt Lake City Brewing Co. v. Hawke, 24 Utah 199. Vermont. — Hawkes v. Chester, 70 Vt. 271 ; State v. Buck, 74 Vt. 29. Virginia. — Southern R. Co. v. Wilcox, 99 Va. 394; Repass v. Richmond, 99 Va. 508. Washington. — Schlotfeldt v. Bull, 18 Wash. 64; Long v. Pierce County, 22 Wash. 330; State v. Gates, 28 Wash. 689. j Supp. C. of L.— 7 97 West Virginia. — Crothers v. Crothers, 40 W. Va. 169 ; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283 ; Lindsley v. McGrath, 62 N. J. Eq. 478; Porter v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 5o S. W. Rep. 380; Henry v. Bounds, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 120. Declarations of the vendor that he had sold out to the vendee were held inadmissible in an action for conversion of property against a sheriff who had attached the property as that of the vendor. Lumm v. Howells, 27 Utah 80. The declarations of a testator, made at or about the time of the giving of a note, to the effect that he had paid all his attorneys and he had a poor opinion of plaintiff, the payee in the note, were admitted in favor of the executors. Moore v. Palmer, 14 Wash. 134. The president of a bank, being payee of a note given by the bank, indorsed it to plaintiff, and at the time made a statement as to the amount due on the note. This statement was held to have been inadmissible in a suit on the note against the bank. Love v. Anchor Raisin Vineyard Co., (Cal. 1896) 45 Pac. Rep. 1044. A copy of a coroner's inquest showing sui- cide of the insured, and furnished by a subor- dinate lodge to, and as agent of, the executive council of a secret insurance order, was held to be self-serving and not admissible against the beneficiary. Cox v. Royal Tribe; 42 Oregon 365, 95 Am. St. Rep. 752. Payments Indorsed on a Note by the obligee are self-serving declarations and not admissible to prove payments for the purpose of removing the bar of the statute of limitations. Gupton v. Hawkins, 126 N. Car. 81. Declarations and Expressions of Fain, Etc., made to an examining physician, are admis- sible as part of the res gesta. Jones v. Niagara Junction R. Co., 63 N. Y. App. Div. 607. And see generally the title Res Gestae. Gestures may be admitted when part of the res gesta. State v. Maxey, 107 La. 799. Strangers — United States. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett, 111 Fed. Rep. 849, 50 C. C. A. 17; Judd v. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 7, affirming on rehearing 117 Fed. Rep. 206, 54 C. C. A. 238. Alabama. — Bunzel v. Maas, 116 Ala. 68. Arkansas. — Tharp v. Page, 66 Ark. 129. California. — California Bank v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 113 Cal. 409. Connecticut. — Budd v. Meriden Electric R. Co., 69 Conn. 272. Georgia. — Churchman v. Robinson, 93 Ga. 731; Robinson v. Stevens, 93 Ga. 535; Morris v. Levering, 98 Ga. 33 ; First State Bank v. Carver, in Ga. 876; Scott v. Maddox, 113 Ga. 795, 84 Am. St. Rep. 263. Idaho. — Axtell v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (Idaho 1903) 74 Pac. Rep. 1075. Illinois. — Dowie v. Driscoll, 203 111. 480 ; Mann v. Sodakat, 66 111. App. 393 ; Himrod Coal Co. v. Adack, 94 111. App. 1. Indiana. — Garr v. Shaffer, 139 Ind. 191. Iowa. — Matter of Goldthorp, 94 Iowa 336, 58 Am. St. Rep. 400; Oxtoby v. Henley, 112 Iowa 697. Kansas. — Holman v. Raynesford, 3 Kan. App. 676 ; Edwards v. Bricker, 66 Kan. 241. Kentucky. — Bean v. Taylor, 61 S. W. Rep. 31, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1665; Hays v. Earls, 77 S, 677-679 ADMISSIONS. Vol.1 677. See note i. 678. 2. Parties to the Record. — See note 3. 679. 3. Real Parties.— See note 1. W. Rep. 706, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1299; Marks v. Hardy, 78 S. W. Rep. 864, 1105, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1770, 1909. Maryland. — Johnson v. Johnson, 96 Md. 144- Massachusetts. — Blanchette v. Holyoke St. R. Co., 175 Mass. 51; Koplan v. Boston Gas Light Co., 177 Mass. 15. Michigan. — Vyn -v. Keppel, 108 Mich. 244; Moore v. Hazelton Tp., 118 Mich. 425 ; Seitz v. Starks, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 852, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 978. Minnesota. — Hahn v. Penney, 60 Minn. 487 ; Bathke v. Krassin, 82 Minn. 226; Whitney v. Wagener, 84 Minn. 211, 87 Am. St. Rep. 351. Missouri, -r George B. Loving Co. v. Hes- perian Cattle Co., 176 Mo. 330; John Deere Plow Co. v. McCullough, 102 Mo. App. 458. Montana. — Wiggin v. Fine, 17 Mont. 575- Nebraska. — Kyd v. Cook, 56 Neb. 71, 7i Am. St. Rep. 661 ; Runquist v. Anderson, 64 Neb. 755. New York. — Buchanan v. Foster, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 542 ; Whitman v. Egbert, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 374; Dimon v. Keery, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 318. Oregon. — Mattis v. Hosmer, 37 Oregon 523, affirmed 37 Oregon 533. Pennsylvania. — Dosch v. Diem, 176 Pa. St. 603; Myerstown Bank v. Roessler, 186 Pa. St. 431 ; Shannon -0. Castner, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 294 ; Thomas v. Butler, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 305 ; Abington Dairy Co. v. Reynolds, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 632. South Carolina. — Ragsdale ■ m . » 3. Admissions of Agent Not Made at Time 01 Transaction or Authorized by Principal — Eng- land. — Whitechurch v. Cavanagh, (1902) A. C. 117, 71 L. J. K. B. 4°°- United States. — Brown v. Cranberry Iron, etc., Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 96, 25 U. S. App. 679; Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 75 Fed. Rep. 818, 45 U. S. App. 84; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Belli- with, 83 Fed. Rep. 437, 55 U. S. App. 113; Holmes v. Montauk Steamboat Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 73i, 35 C. C. A. 556; Fidelity, etc., Co. v.- Courtney, 103 Fed. Rep. 599, 43 C. C. A. 331 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Haines, 11 1 Fed. Rep. 337, 49 C. C. A. 379 ; Central Electric Co. v. Sprague Electric Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 925, 57 C. C. A. 197 ; Marande v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 124 Fed. Rep. 42; Meigs v. London Assur. Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 781. Alabama. — Commercial F. Ins. Co. v. Mor- ris, 105 Ala. 498; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Warten, 113 Ala. 479, 59 Am. St. Rep. 129; Sullivan v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 77; Stanton v. Baird Lumber Co., 132 Ala. 635. Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Kelley, 61 Ark. 52; Ames Iron Works v. Kalamazoo Pulley Co., 63 Ark. 87 ; Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Walker, 67 Ark. 147 ; Milwaukee Harvester Co. v. Tymich, 68 Ark. 225. California. — Hewes v. Germain Fruit Co., 106 Cal. 441 ; Mutter v. I. X. L. Lime Co., (Cal. 1895) 42 Pac. Rep. 1068; Silveira v. Iver- sen, 128 Cal. 187; Williams v. Southern Pac. Co., 133 Cal. 550; Relley v. Campbell, 134 Cal. 175; Boone v. Oakland Transit Co., 139 Cal. 490 ; Peterson v. Mineral King Fruit Co., 140 Cal. 624; Luman v. Golden Ancient Chan- nel Min. Co., 140 Cal. 700. Colorado. — T. & H. Pueblo Bldg. Co. v. Klein, 5 Colo. App. 348 ; Emerson v. Burnett, 1 1 Colo. App. 86 ; Baldwin v. Central Sav. Bank, 17 Colo. App. 7; Castner v. Rinne, 31 Colo. 256. Connecticut. — C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. Frisbie, 66 Conn. 67 ; Haywood v. Hamm, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 695. District of Columbia. — Hayzel v. Columbia R. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 359. Georgia. — Lewis v. Equitable Mortg. Co., 94 Ga. 572; Electric R. Co. v. Carson, 98 Ga. 652; Atlanta Sav. Bank v. Spencer, 107 Ga. 629; Harris Loan Co. v. Elliott, etc., Book Type- writer Co., no Ga. 302; Southern R. Co. v. Allison, us Ga. 635; Suttles v. Sewell, 117 Ga. 214; Childs v. Ponder, 117 Ga. 553; Columbus R. Co. v. Peddy, 120 Ga. 589. Illinois. — Hodgerson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 160 111. 430 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge Co., 170 111. 645; Sibley Warehouse, etc., Co. v. Durand, etc., Co., 200 111. 354; Baier v. Selke, 211 111. 312; Cormack v. Mar- shall, 211 111. 519; McCarthy v. Muir, 50 111. App. 510 ; Delaware, etc., Canal Co. v. Mitch- ell, 92 111. App. 577 ; Druecker v. Sandusky Portland Cement Co., 93 111. App. 406 ; Waters v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 101 111. App. 265; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, 112 111. App. 338. Indiana. — Treager v. Jackson Coal, etc., Co., 142 Ind. 164; Alexandria Bldg. Co. v. Mc- Hugh, 12 Ind. App. 282; Broadstreet v. Hall, 33 Ind. App. 122. Iowa. — Garretson v. Merchants', etc., Ins. Co., 92 Iowa 293 ; Dubuque First Nat. Bank v. Booth, 102 Iowa 333; Schoep v. Bankers' Alli- ance Ins. Co., 104 Iowa 354; Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Commercial State Bank, 104 Iowa 682; O. S. Kelley Co. v. Chinn, (Iowa 1898) 75 N. W. Rep. 315; Lee v. Marion Sav. Bank, 108 Iowa 716; Haney-Campbell Co. v. Preston Creamery Assoc, 119 Iowa 188; Vohs v. A. E. Shorthill Co., 124 Iowa 471. Kansas. — Cherokee, etc., Coal, etc., Co. v. Dickson, 55 Kan. 62 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 55 Kan. 83 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Osborn, 58 Kan. 768 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Consolidated Cattle Co., 59 Kan. in ; Walker v. O'Connell, 59 Kan. 306 ; Robins Min. Co. v. Murdock, (Kan. 1904) ^^ Pac. Rep. 596 ; Acme Harvester Co. v. Madden, 4 Kan. App. 598; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 55 Kan. 344. Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 97 Ky. 330 ; Lexington, etc., Min. Co. v. Huff- man, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 611; Wash v. Cary, (Ky. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 728; William Tarr Co. v. Kimbrough, (Ky. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 528; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Webb, 99 Ky. 332 ; East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Sims, (Ky. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 131; Chesa- peake, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 101 Ky. 104; Graddy v. Western Union Tel. Co., (Ky. .1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 468; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Beauchamp, 108 Ky. 47 ; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 113 Ky. 161; Early v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 115 Ky. 13; Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 72 S. W. Rep. 796, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1856; Wallingford v. Aitkins, 72 S. W. Rep. 794, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1995 ; Parker 11. Cumber- land Telephone, etc., Co., 77 S. W. Rep. 1109, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1391 ; McFarland v. Harbison, etc., Co., 82 S. W. Rep. 430, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 746. Louisiana. — Sentell v. Hewitt, 49 La. Ann. 1021. Maine. — Merrow v. Goodrich, 92 Me. 393, 69 Am. St. Rep. 512. Maryland. — Baltimore 0. Lobe, 90 Md. 310. Massachusetts. — Geary v. Stevenson, 169 Mass. 23 ; Gilmore v. Mittineague Paper Co., 169 Mass. 471 ; Koplan v. Boston Gas Light Co., 177 Mass. 15. Michigan. — Ablord v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 104 Mich. 147 ; Maxson v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 218; Hall v. Murdock, 119 Mich. 389; Mott v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 120 Mich. 127 ; Beunk v. Valley City Desk Co., 128 Mich. 562, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 767; Allington, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Reduction Co., 133 Mich. 427, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 269 ; Butler v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 232. Minnesota. — Rosted v. Great Northern R. Co., 76 Minn. 127, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 697, note; Matthews v . Hershey Lumber Co., 65 Minn. 372, 67 N. W. Rep. 1008; Reem v. St. Paul City R. Co., 71 108 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 699 Minn. 503 ; Jackson v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 79 Minn. 44, rehearing denied 79 Minn. 49 ; Par- ker v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 83 Minn. 212. Mississippi. — State v. Spengler, (Miss. 1898) 23 So. Rep. 33. Missouri. — Rice v. St. Louis, 165 Mo. 636, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 69s ; Barker v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 126 Mo. 143, 47 Am. St. Rep. 646; Kearney Bank v. Froman, 129 Mo. 427, 30 Am. St. Rep. 456; Pomeroy v. Fullerton, 131 Mo. 581 ; Bangs Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350; Ruschen- berg v. Southern Electric R. Co., 161 Mo. 70; Koenig v. Union Depot R. Co., 173 Mo. 698; Clack v. Southern Electrical Supply Co., 72 Mo. App. 506 ; Smith v. Little Pittsburg Coal Co., 75 Mo. App. 177; National Bank of Com- merce v. Fitze, 76 Mo. App. 356; Gotwald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 492 ; Huber Mfg. Co. v. Hunter, 78 Mo. App. 82; Wright Invest. Co. v. Fillingham, 85 Mo. App. 534 ; Harper v. Western Union Tel. Co., 92 Mo. App. 304 ; Helm v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 419; Holton v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 358. Montana. — Wilson v. Harris, 21 Mont. 374, reversing 19 Mont. 69; Missoula Mercantile Co. v. O'Donnell, 24 Mont. 75, denying rehear- ing 24 Mont. 6s ; Hogan v. Kelly, 29 Mont. 485. Nebraska. — Union L. Ins. Co. v. Hainan, 54 Neb. 599, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 695 ; Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Neb. 428; Clancys. Barker, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 440. New Hampshire. — Nebonne v. Concord R. Co., 67 N. H. 531 ; Guerin v. New England Telephone, etc., Co., 70 N. H. 133. New Jersey. — West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse-R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163; Black- man v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 1 ; Huebner v. Erie R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 327; King v. Atlantic City Gas, etc., Co., 70 N. J. L. 679. New York. — Kay v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 163 N. Y. 447; Taylor v. Commercial Bank, 174 N. Y. 181; National Bank v. Byrnes, (N. ~¥. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 1 103, affirming 84 N. Y. App. Div. 100; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Grover, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 4; Niles Tool-Works Co. v. Reynolds,, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 24; Congdon, etc., Co. v. Sheehan, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 456; Timm v. J. G. Rose Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 337 ; Morris v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 557; Cosgray v. New England Piano Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 455 ; Kelly v. Morehouse, 25 N. Y. App. Div. 359 ; Herrmann v. Sarles, 42 N. Y. App. 268 ; Ballard v. Beveridge, 45 N. Y. App. 477; Stevens v. Siegel-Cooper Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 250; Johnson v. Buffalo Homoeopathic Hospital, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 513; Goetz v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 365 ; Moore v. Rankin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 749; Smith v. Coe, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 631, denying rehearing 55 N. Y. App. Div. 585 ; Brown v. Dutchess County Mut. Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 9; Leary v. Albany Brewing Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 6; Rider, etc., Pub. Co. v. Rough Rider Horseshoe Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 283 ; Rogers v. Interurban St. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 974; Patterson v. White Star Towing Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 359 ; Diehl v. Watson, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 445 ; Wimmer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 258 ; Burns v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 566; White v. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 4. North Carolina. — Egerton v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 115 N. Car. 645; Craven v. Rus- sell, 118 N. Car. 564; Willis v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 120 N. Car. 508; Darlington v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 N. Car. 448; McEntyre v. Levi Cotton Mills Co., 132 N. Car. 598; Ly- man v. Southern R. Co., 132 N. Car. 721. North Dakota.- — Balding v . Andrews, 12 N. Dak. 267. Ohio. — Sloss Marblehead Lime Co. v. Smith, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 79, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 213; Gobrecht v. Sicking, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 851, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 881. Oregon. — Wicktorwitz v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 31 Oregon 569; Goltra v. Penland, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 129. Pennsylvania. — Briggs v. East Broad Top R., etc., Co., 206 Pa. St. 564 ; Morris u. Guffey, 188 Pa. St. 534; Giberson v. Patterson Mills Co., 174 Pa. St. 369, 52 Am., St. Rep. 823; Helping Hand Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Buss, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 343. South Carolina. — Salley v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 62 S. Car. 127. South Dakota. — Estey v. Birnbaum, 9 S. Dak. 174; Reagan v. McKibben, 11 S. Dak. 270. Texas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 98; Laughlin v. Fidelity Mut. L. Assoc, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 448 ; Lake Como Land, etc., Co. v. Coughlin, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 340 ; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Southwick, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 592 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 66; Brene- man v. Kilgore, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 202 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Yarborough, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 422; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 708 ; Pacific Express Co. v. Lothrop, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 339 ; South- western Tel., etc., Co. v. Gotcher, 93 Tex. 114; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Carlisle, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 553; Continental Ins. Co. v. Cummings, (Tex. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 705, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 378 ; Waggoner v. Snody, (Tex. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 1134, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 355. Utah. — ■ Moyle v. Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. Vermont. — Hardwick Sav. Bank v. Drenan, 72 Vt. 438. Virginia. — Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage Co., 91 Va. 534; Jammison v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 92 Va. 327, 53 Am. St. Rep. 813. Washington. — Cook v. Stimson Mill Co., (Wash. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 39. Wisconsin. — Kliegel v. Aitken, 94 Wis. 432, 59 Am. St. Rep. 901 ; Consolidated Milling Co. v. Fogo, 104 Wis. 92; Small v. McGovern, 117 Wis. 608 ; Kamp v. Coxe, (Wis. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 366. Under This Rule, the statements of an elevator boy as to the cause of the falling of the ele- vator, made some minutes after the accident, 109 698-699 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 698. See note I. b. ATTORNEYS — Rule as to Agents Generally Applies. Admissions in Common Conversation. — See note 6. Distinct and Formal Admissions. — See note J. 699. When Receivable on Subsequent Trial. — See notes 2, 3. — See notes 3, 4. were held inadmissible, being no part of the res gestat. Lissak v. Crocker Estate Co., 119 Cal. 442. In Hopkins v. Boyd, 18 Ind. App. 63, it was held that though such declarations are not admissible to prove the fact of negligence, they are admissible to show notice of conditions on the part of the railroad company. Where Special Authority to Admit Is Given. — An agent may be authorized to make admis- sions about a matter outside of his ordinary authority. Medearis v. Anchor Mut. F. Ins. Co., 104 Iowa 88, 65 Am. St. Rep. 428. Admissions by General Agents as to Past Trans- actions. — The Severn, 113 Fed. Rep. 578; Knarston v. Manhattan L. Ins. Co., 140 Cal. 57 ; Mt. Morris v. Kanode, 98 111. App. 373 ; Louisville Ins. Co. v. Monarch, 99 Ky. 578 ; Buff urn v. York Mfg. Co., 175 Mass. 471 ; Ward v. Tennessee Coal, etc., R. Co., ~(Tenn. Ch. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 193; Texas Standard Cotton Oil Co. v. National Cotton Oil Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 159; Cooper Grocer Co. v. Britton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 91 ; Consumers' Cotton Oil Co. v. Jonte, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 847 ; Texas, etc., Telephone Co. u. Prince, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 327; Roberts v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 30 Wash. 25. For Authorities Supporting the Opposite View. — Momence Stone Co. v. Groves, 197 111. 88, affirming 100 111. App. 98 ; Andrews v. Tama- rack Min. Co., 114 Mich. 375; Butters Salt, etc., Co. v. Vogel, (Mich. 1904) 97 N. W. Rep. 757, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 807. The admission of a receiver of a national bank of the receipt of a draft prior to his appointment was held inadmissible to charge the bank with negligence in reference to the draft. Portland First Nat. Bank v. Linn County Nat. Bank, 30 Oregon 296. 69§. 1. O'Toole v. Post Printing, etc., Co., 179 Pa. St. 271 ; Coll v. Easton Transit Co., 180 Pa. St. 618; Roberts v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 30 Wash. 25. 3. Must Be Made Within Scope of Authority. — Waterbury v. Waterbury Traction Co., 74 Conn. 152; Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Murray, 174 111. 259 ; Miller v. Palmer, 25 Ind. App. 357, 81 Am. St. Rep. 107; Dorrance v. McAlester, 1 Indian Ter. 473 ; Fletcher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Mich. 363; Stinesville, etc., Stone Co. v. White, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 135; Lytte v. Crawford, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 273 ; People v. Mole, 85 N. Y. App. Div. 33; Murmutt v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 634 ; Burraston v. Nephi First Nat. Bank, 22 Utah 328; Fosha v. O'Donnell, 120 Wis. 336. An Unauthorized Letter by an Attorney is not admissible against the client. McGarry v. Mc- Garry, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 71. But an Authorized Letter or one written within the scope of his authority is admissible. Tred- well v- DoncQiirt, j8 N. Y. App. Div, 219, Affidavit by Attorney of Record. — See Gray v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 81 Minn. 333. 4. Must Be Made During Agency. —Murray v. Sweasy, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 45. A statement made to one of the parties by his attorney in the presence of the agent or attorney of the other party, about a transaction then depending, is competent evidence. King v. Franklin, 132 Ala. 559. See also Inman v. Schloss, 122 Ala. 461. 6. Admissions in Common Conversation Not Re- ceivable. — Cramer v. Truitt, 113 Ga. 967; Cable Co. v. Parantha, 118 Ga. 913; Chicago City R. Co. v. McMeen, 70 III. App. 220 ; School Trustees v. Mitchell, 73 111. App. 543 ; Smith v. Bradhurst, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 546. See also Hicks v. Naomi Falls Mfg. Co., (N. Car. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 703. 7. Admissions Made for Purpose of Dispensing with Proof. — McKechney v. Columbian Pow- der Co., 86 111. App. 27 ; Allen v. St., Louis, etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. 205; National L. Ins. Co. v. Butler, 61 Neb. 449, 87 Am. St. Rep. 462; Gottlieb v. Alton Grain Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 380 ; Brown v. Pechman, 55 S. Car. 555, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. or Law (2d ed.) 698; Beard v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 402, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 698, note 7. See also Thompson Foundry, etc., Co. v. Glass, 136 Ala. 648; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Rooker, 13 Ind. App. 600; Harvin v. Blackman, 108 La. 426 ; Sullivan v. Dunham, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 342, affirmed 161 N. Y. 290; Granger v. Amer- ican Brewing Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 701 ; Hicks v. Naomi Falls Mfg. Co., (N. Car. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 703; Sanderson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 1103. Compare Pratt v. Conway, 148 Mo. 291, 71 Am. St. Rep. 602. A bill of particulars furnished voluntarily by an attorney may be admitted against his client. American Copper, etc., Works v. Galland- Burke Brewing, etc., Co., 30 Wash. 178. In Goodman v. Mercantile Credit Guarantee Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 474, it was held that a formal admission of a fact made by counsel in the course of a trial could not be withdrawn except for cause shown. Where an admission of a party forms the basis of an order of the Supreme Court, such order will not be set aside or modified by reason of any mental reservation of counsel making the admission. Smith v. St. Paul, 69 Minn. 276. 699. 2. When Admissions May Be Proved on Subsequent Trial of the Cause. — Scaife v. West- ern North Carolina Land Co., (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 238 ; Missouri, etc., Telephone Co. v . Vandevort, 67 Kan. 269 ; Gallagher v. Mc- Bride, 66 N. J. L. 360 ; Virginia-Carolina Chem- ical Co. v. Kirven, 130 N. Car. 161 ; Brown v. Pechman, 55 S. Car. 555. The Mere Opinion of an Attorney on facts as reported to him is not admissible against the client on a subsequent trial, Hick? v. Naqmj no Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 700-702 700. The Admissions of an Attorney's Clerk. — See note I. c. HUSBAND AND WIFE — Husband's Admissions as to Wife's Separate Estate. — See note 2. Wife's Admissions as Affecting Husband. — See note 3. 702. d. Parties Referred to for Information — Euie stated. — See note 1. 6. Principal Against Surety — General Rule. — See note 3. Falls Mfg. Co., (N. Car. 1905) so S. E. Rep. 703- 699. 3. Miller v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 133 Fed. Rep. 337. 700. 1. Lord v. Wood, 120 Iowa 303. 2. Wife's Separate Estate — Husband's Admis sions — United States. — Duncan v. Landis, (C. C. A.) 106 Fed. Rep. 839. ' Alabama. — Pearce v. Smith, 126 Ala. 116; Pearson v. Adams, 129 Ala. 157. Georgia. — Robinson v. Stevens, 93 Ga. 535; Jones v. Harrell, no Ga. 373. Iowa. — Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa 703; Fowler Co. v. McDonnell, 100 Iowa 536 ; Mont- gomery v. Mann, 120 Iowa 609. Kansas. — Van Zandt v. Shuyler, 2 Kan. App. 118; Stephens v. Gardner Creamery Co., 9 Kan. App. 883, 57 Pac. Rep. 1058. Kentucky. — Shields v. Lewis, 70 S. W. Rep. 51, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 822. Massachusetts. — Barker v. Mackay, 175 Mass. 485. Michigan. — Whelpley v. Stoughton, 112 Mich. 594 ; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 126 Mich. 217. Missouri. — Lemmons v. McKinney, 162 Mo. 525 ; Vermillion v. Parsons, 101 Mo. App. 602 ; Vermillion v. Parsons, 107 Mo. App. 192 ; New- berry v. Durand, 87 Mo. App. 290 ; Fox v. Windes, 127 Mo. 502, 48 Am. St. Rep. 648. Nebraska. — ■ Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735, affirmed on rehearing 66 Neb. 744, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 700. New York. — Bouton v. Welch, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 288 ; Storm v. McGrover, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 33 ; Winans tj. Demarest, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 504- North Carolina. — Strother v. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., 123 N. Car. 197; Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N. Car. 348. Oregon. — -Minard v. Stillman, 35 Oregon 259 ; Noblitt v. Durbin, 41 Oregon 555. Pennsylvania. — Thomas v. Butler, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 305 ; Sweigart v. Conrad, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 340. South Dakota. — Aldous v. Olverson, (S. Dak. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 917- Texas. — La Master v. Dickson, 91 Tex. 593, affirming 17 Tex. Civ. App. 473; Owen v. New York, etc., Land Co., n Tex. Civ. App. 284; Evans v. Purinton, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 158; Thompson v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 591 ; Word v. Kennon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 365. Where husband and wife conspire to defraud his creditors his admissions are competent evi- dence against her. Higgins v. Spahr, 145 Ind. 167 ; Pullins v. Pullins, 62 S. W. Rep. 865, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 333; Taliaferro v. Evans, 160 Mo. 380; Coburn v. Stover, 67 N. H. 86; Pound- stone v. Jones, 182 Pa. St. 574. Where a wgman, hiding advert possession of land, marries, her husband's recognition of the title of the true owner stops the running of the statute of limitations in her favor. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Speights, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 572, affirmed 94 Tex. 350. Fraudulent Conveyance from Husband to Wife. — Where a conveyance to the wife from the husband, who remains in possession of the land, is attacked by creditors for fraud, the declara- tions of the husband against the interest of the wife are admissible. George Taylor Commis- sion Co. v. Bell, 62 Ark. 26. Homestead. — Where the husband and wife executed a deed to the homestead, taking pur- chase-money notes and retaining a lien, it was held that in a suit by the indorsee of the notes to foreclose the lien, the affidavits of the hus- band and the grantee showing the bona fides of the sale were admissible against the wife. Cooper v. Ford, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 253. 3. Wife's Admissions as Affecting the Husband. — Svetinich v. Sheean, 124 Cal. 216, 71 Am. St. Rep. 50 ; Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Lavery, no Iowa 575, 80 Am. St. Rep. 325; Stratton v. Edwards, 174 Mass. 374; Horan v. Byrnes, 70 N. H. 531 ; Meyer v. Jewell, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 972. 702. 1. Party Referring Bound by Admis- sions of Referee. — Woods v. Jensen, 130 Cal. 200 ; Dorrance v. McAlester, 1 Indian Ter. 473 ; Jennings v. Haynes, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 13 ; Fiore v. Ladd, 29 Oregon 528 ; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Cooley, 69 S. Car. 332, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 701, 702. The reference must be about some subject of dispute between the parties. Robertson v. Hamilton, 16 Ind. App. 328, 59 Am. St. Rep. 319- Where There Is No Intention to Be Bound — - Ho Agency. — Where the defendant, seeking credit of the plaintiff, represented that another would guarantee the payment of his accounts, and referred the plaintiff to such person, it was held that statements made to the plaintiff by such person were inadmissible in a suit against the defendant. Lehman v. Frank, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 442. 3. General Rule as to Declarations of Principal. — Guarantee Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 124 Fed. Rep. 170, .59 C. C. A. 376; Walling v. Morgan County, 126 Ala. 326; Thompson v. Commer- cial Union Assur. Co., (Colo. App. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 1073; Bailey v. McAlpin, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 388; Swift v. School Trustees, 189 111. 584 ; Bartlett v. Wheeler, 195 111. 445 , af- firming 96 111. App. 342 ; Guarantee Co. v. Mu- tual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 57 111. App. 254; Knott v. Peterson, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 173; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Reynolds, 168 Mass. 588 ; Lancashire Ins. Co. -u. Callahan, 68 Minn. 277, 64 Am. St. Rep. 475; Hall v. U. S. Fidelity, etc., Co., 77 Minn. «4; Vaughn, Mach, Co. %,■ in 703-707 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 703. 704. note i. 705. 706. 707. Declarations Before and After the Transaction. — See notes 1 , 2. 7. Persons Jointly Interested — a. Generally — Buie stated. See note i. Joint Interest — Community of Interest. — See note 2. See notes i, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. See Quintard, 165 N. Y. 649, affirming 37 N. Y. App. Div. 368; Eichhold v. Tiffany, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 680; Eich- hold v. Tiffany, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 627; Yates v. Thomas, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 552. State Treasurer. — -The entries on the books and records of his office made by a state treas- urer, and his accounts filed with the state auditor, are admissible against him and the sureties on his official bond to show his defal- ■ cation. State v. Paxton, 65 Neb. no. 703. 1. Admissions After the Transaction. — Knott v. Peterson, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 173; Barkley -v. Bradford, 100 Ky. 304; Eichhold v. Tiffany, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 627; Wieder v. Union Surety, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 499 ; Nickols v. Jones, 166 Pa. St. 599. Where Suit Is Against the Principal and Sureties Combined. — Finelite v. Sonberg, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 45s ; McFarlane v. Howell, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 246. 2. Admissions Of a Trustee made before his bond is executed are not admissible against his bondsmen. Matter of Williams, (Surrogate Ct.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 636. 704. 1. General Rule as to Admissions in Case of Persons Jointly Interested. — Main v. Aukam, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 51 ; Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co., 103 111. App. 625 ; Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank, 63 Neb. 801, 93 Am. St. Rep. 484; Blymyer v. Meader, 3 Ohio Dec. 52 ; Pearsall v. Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. , App. 682 ; Dover v. Winchester, 70 Vt. 418; Fey v. I. O. O. F. Mutual L. Ins. Soc, 120 Wis. 358. Answers in Chancery. — Turner v. Mitchell, 61 S. W. Rep. 468, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1784. Declaration in Declarant's Interest are not ad- missible to fix liability on his associate. Thyll v. New York, etc., R. Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 513, modifying (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 175- 705. 1. Joint Contractors. — Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 325. Compare' Matteson v. Palser, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 91. 706. 2. Dean v. Ross, 105 Cal. 227 ; Sun- day v. Dietrich, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 640 ; Shan- non v. Castner, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 294; Fisher v. White, 94 Va. 236 ; Wytheville Crystal Ice, etc., Co. v. Frick Co., 96 Va. 141. Where two parties exchange property an ad- mission of one of them, of liability of both to a broker for commissions for bringing about the trade, does not bind the other. Randrup v. Schroeder, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 52. No Joint Interest Between Indorsers. — Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310. Nor Between Executors and Heirs. — Mer- chants' L. Assoc, v, Yoakum, 98 Fed. Rep. 251, 39 C. C. A. 56, Nor a Tenant and an Alleged landlord to Whom He Attorns. — Baxter v. Carrol, (N. J. 1898) 41 Atl. Rep. 407. Insured and Beneficiary. — See Foxhever u. Order of Red Cross, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 56. Joint Promisors. — The admissions of one joint promisor will not bind the others. Relley v. Campbell, 134 Cal. 175. Contractor and Owner. — The admission of ser- vice of notice of intention to file a lien by a contractor is not competent against the owner of the premises. Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 729. 707. 1. Tenants in Common. — Matter of Kennedy, 167 N. Y. 163, affirming 53 N. Y. App. Div. 105 ; Matter of Van Dawalker, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 550 ; Matter of Campbell, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 418; Naul v. Naul, 75 -N. Y. App. Div. 292. The Admissions of a Tenant in Common. — Where a cotenant relies, for recovery in ejectment, upon the possession of his cotenant, the admissions of the latter, made while taking and holding possession, are admissible against the former. Kellum v. Mission of Immaculate Virgin, etc., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 523. 2. Tenant for Life and Remaindermen. — Down- ing v. Mayes, 153 111. 330, 46 Am. St. Rep. 896. 3. See Johnson v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 1023. 5. Devisees and Legatees. ■ — Carpenter's Ap- peal, 74 Conn. 431; Matter of Hull, 117 Iowa 738 ; Roberts v. Bidwell, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1000, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 1016; Schierbaum v. Schemme, 1.57 Mo. 1, 80 Am. St. Rep. 604 ; Wood v. Carpenter, 166 Mo. 465 ; Stull v. Stall, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 196. Contra, Wall v. Dimmitt, 114 Ky. 923. Where substantially the whole estate is be- queathed to one legatee, the admissions of such legatee are admissible. Lundy v. Lundy, 118 Iowa 445. But the Admission of One of Several Devisees, while not to be regarded as an admission against all, may create a presumption against all. Gib- son v. Sutton, 70 S. W. Rep. 188, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 868. 6. An Executor is not bound by his admis- sions made before he became executor. Nis- kern v. Haydock, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 175. 7. Trustees. — Belding v. Archer, 131 N. Car. 287. 8. Corporation Officers. — See Bangs Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350. Declarations of officers that they are author- ized to use the bonds of the corporation for their private purposes are not binding on the corporation. Germania Safety- Vault, etc., Co. v. Boynton, 71 Fed. Rep. .797, 37 U. S. App. 602. 9. Stockholders. — Starr Burying Ground Assoc, v. North Lane Cemetery Assoc, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 467; Long*). Moore, 19 Tex, Civ. App. 363, tia Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. r ©7-7 in 707. [Receivers. — But there is such joint interest between co-receivers. See note ga.] 70$. Where Admission Is Competent Against Only One of Several Codefendants, — See note I. b. Partners — Rule stated. — See note 4. 710. See notes 1, 2. Not Admissible to Prove the Partnership. — See note 3. 711. See note 1. Partnership Provable by Successive Declarations of Members. — See note 2. 707. 9a. Receivers. — But there is such joint interest between co-receivers: Shirk v. Brookfield, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 293. 708. 1. Alabama. — Brunson v. State, 124 Ala. 37. Indiana. — Smith v. Meiser, 1 1 Ind. App. 468. Iowa. — Allen v. Barrett, 100 Iowa 16 ; Con- nors v. Chingren, in Iowa 437; State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660; Chaslavka v. Mechalek, 124 Iowa 69. Kentucky. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 113 Ky. 161. Massachusetts. — Broderick v. Higginson, 169 Mass. 482 ; Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieber- bach, 176 Mass. 577; Com. v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184. Michigan. — Carpenter v. Carpenter, 126 Mich. 217. Missouri. — Carthage Marble, etc., Co. v. Bauman, 55 Mo. App. 204 ; Bruce v. Bornbeck, 79 Mo. App. 231. Nebraska. — Cleland v. Anderson, 66 Neb. 252. North Carolina. — State v. Williams, 129 N. Car. 581. Oregon. — Bingham v. Lipman, 40 Oregon 363- South Carolina. — State v. Adams, 68 S. Car. 421. Texas. — St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Bishop, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 504; Shelburn v. McCrocklin, (Tex. Civ. App, 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 329; La Master v. Dickson, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 473 ; Mason v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 718; Harrold v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 728. Wisconsin. — Collins v. State, 115 Wis. 596. Where incompetent evidence was admitted as to one defendant, but excluded as to his co- defendant, the latter's conviction will not be disturbed. Willis v. State, 67 Ark. 234. 4. Must Be Hade During the Continuance of Partnership. — ■ Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91; Sheldon v. Bigelow, 118 Iowa 586; Nickerson v. Russell, 172 Mass. 584. Admissions Prior to Partnership, — The issue being the existence of the partnership at the time of creating the debt, admissions of the existence of the partnership made after the debt was created do not bind the partner de- nying his membership at the time of the debt's creation. Huyssen v. Lawson, 90 Mo. App. 82. After Dissolution. —Wilson v. Whitten, 99 111. App^ 233; Peoria Scrap Iron Co. v. Cohen, 113 111. App. 30 ; Boynton v. Hardin, 9 Kan. App. 166; Shakopee First Nat. Bank v. Strait, 65 Minn. 162; Moore v. Palmer, 132 N. Car. 969; Mackintosh v. Kimball, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 494; Cohen v. Adams, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 118. 1 Supp. C. of L.— 8 1 710. 1. Must Be Within Scope of Partnership. — Kindel v. Hall, 8 Colo. App. 63 ; Low v. Arnstein, ^3 111. App. 217; Britton v. Britton, 19 Ind. App. 638; Taft v. Church, 162 Mass. 527 ; Robertson v. Blair, 56 S. Car, 96 ; Hester v. Smith, 5 Wyo. 291. In a criminal prosecution the defendant can- not be bound by admissions made by his part- ner in a legitimate business. People v. Mc- Bride, 120 Mich. 166. In an action against a firm to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of one partner, a statement by one of the other partners, who did not have any personal knowledge of the accident or of the circumstances under which it happened, to the effect that the plaintiff ought to be paid and that he had always been willing to pay him, is not admissible. Folk v. Schaeffer, 180 Pa. St. 613. 2. Grunenberg v. Smith, 38 111. App. 281 ; Lord v. Wood, 120 Iowa 303 ; Rudy v. Katz, 66 S. W. Rep. 18, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1697 ; Carlson v. Holm, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W- Rep. 1125; Albuquerque First Nat. Bank v. Lesser, 9 N. Mex. 604 ; Randall v. Knevals, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 146, affirmed 161 N. Y. 632; Tapp v. Dibrell, 134 N. Car. 546; Frick v. Reynolds, 6 Okla. 638 ; American F. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 395; Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441. 3. Not Competent to Prove Fact of Partnership. — Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Bliss, 132 Ala. 253, 90 Am. St. Rep. 907; Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 ; Barwick v. Alderman, (Fla. 1903} 35 So. Rep. 13; Thompson v. Mallory, 108 Ga. 797; Dodds v. Everett-Ridley-Ragan Co., no v Ga. 303; Parker v. Paine, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 768; Pretzfelder v. Strobel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 152; Moore v. Williams, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 287. See also Baker v. Baer< 59 Ark. 503. Nor are such declarations competent when offered by a stranger to the partnership. Coyne v. Sayre, 54 N. J. Fq. 702. But they may be received to prove the part- nership where they are against the interest of the party making them. Card v. Moore, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 327. Inadmissible to Disprove Partnership. — Marks v. Hardy, 78 S. W. Rep. 864, 11 05, 25 Ky. , L. Rep. 1770, 1909; Gilroy v. Loftus, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 317. 711. 1. Frank v. J. S. Brown Hardware' Co., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 430. 2. Barwick -v. Alderman, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 13; Chamberlain v. Fisher, 117 Mich. 428, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 711. T 3 711-712 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 711. c. Co-conspirators. — See notes 3, 4. 712. See note 1. 711. 3. Admissions Made During the Pen- dency of the Unlawful Enterprise. — Willis v. State, 67 Ark. 234 ; Graff v. People, 208 111. 312 ; Harrington v. Butte, etc., Min. Co., 19 Mont. 411; Borrego v. Territory, 8 N. Mex. 446; Lockhart v. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 263; Avard v. Carpenter, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 258; Pacific Live- stock Co. v. Gentry, 38 Oregon 275; Com. v. Zuern, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 588 ; Wright v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 427; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 936. 4, Ramsey v. Flowers, (Ark. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 147 ; State v. Corcoran, 7 Idaho 220 ; State v. Crofford, 121 Iowa 39s ; Nicolay d. Mallery, 62 Minn. 119; Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 ; Voisin v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 139; San Antonio Gas Co. v. State, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 118; Wallace v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 966. 712. 1. General Rule as to Admissions of Co- conspirators — United States. — Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 188 U. S. 208; U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. Rep. 698 ; Drake 11. Stewart, 76 Fed. Rep. 140, 40 U. S. App. 173. Alabama. — Coghill v. Kennedy, 119 Ala. 641 ; Wood v. State, 128 Ala. 27, 86 Am. St. Rep. 71 ; Thomas v. State, 133 Ala. 139; Stevens v. State, 133 Ala. 28; Crittenden v. State, 134 Ala. 14s ; Smith v. ,State, 136 Ala. 1 ; Collins v. State, 138 Ala. 57. Arkansas. — -Ramsey v. Flowers, (Ark. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 147. California. — People v. Rodley, 131 Cal. 240 ; Banning v. Marleau, 133 Cal. 485; People 0. Howard, 135 Cal. 266. Colorado. — Porter v. People, 31 Colo. 508. Connecticut. — State v. Carey, 76 Conn. 342. Florida. — Mercer v. State, 40 Fla. 216, 74 Am. St. Rep. 135; Baldwin v. State, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 220. Georgia. — Carter v. State, 106 Ga. 372, 71 Am. St. Rep. 262; Ernest v. Merritt, 107 Ga. 61 ; Green v. State, 109 Ga. 536 ; Slaughter v. State, 113 Ga. 284, 84 Am. St. Rep. 242. Illinois. — Lasher v. Littell, 202 111. 551; Miller v. John, 208 111. 173. Indiana. — Musser v. State, 157 Ind. 423. Iowa. — Connors v. Chingren, in Iowa 437; State v. Soper, 118 Iowa 1. Kentucky. — Powers v. Com., no Ky. 386; Mcintosh v. Com., 64 S. W. Rep. 951, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1222; Shotwell v. Com., 65 S. W. Rep. 820, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1649 ; Powers v. Com., 114 Ky. 237, 276; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 271. Massachusetts. — -Com. v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184. Michigan. — Jansen v. McQueen, 112 Mich. 254; Sudworth v. Morton, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 769 ; People v. McGarry, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 147, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 10. Minnesota. — State v. Palmer, 79 Minn. 428 ; State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 262. Missouri.- — State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98; State v. Lewis, (Mo. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Mosby v. McKee, etc., Commission Co., 91 Mo. App. 500. Montana. — Pincus v. Reynolds, 19 Mont. 564; State v. Stevenson, 26 Mont. 332; State v. De Wolfe, 29 Mont. 415; Lane v. Bailey, 29 Mont. 548. Nebraska. — Stratton v. Oldfield, 41 Neb. 702 ; Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723 ; Cleland v. Anderson, 66 Neb. 252 ; Lamb v. State, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 1050; O'Brien v. State, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 649. New Hampshire. — Coburn v. Storer, 67 N. H. 86. New York. — People v. Van Tassel, 156 N. Y. 561 ; People v. Hall, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 57; People v. Putnam, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 125; People v. Strauss, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 453. North Carolina. — State v. Turner, 119 N. Car. 841. Ohio. — State v. Jacobs, 10 Ohio Dec. 252, 7 Ohio N. P. 261. Oregon. — State v. Tice, 30 Oregon 457 ; State v. Moore, 32 Oregon 65. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Bubnis, 197 Pa. St. 542 ; Com. v. Biddle, 200 Pa. St. 640 ; Com. v. Stambaugh, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 386. Texas. — Hughes v. Waples-Platter Grocer Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 212; McCarty v. Hart- ford F. Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 934 ; Small v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 790; Brooks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 924; Hays v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 835; Stevens v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 154; Henry v. State, (Tex. Crim. igoi) 63 S. W. Rep. 882 ; Hudson v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 420 ; Yeary v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1 106; Chapman v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 477 ; Kipper v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 611; Baker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 618; Barnett v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. ioij. West Virginia. — State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. i3 2 - Admissible Though Made in Absence of Other Conspirators. — Hunter v. State, 112 Ala. 77; State v. Clark, 9 Houst. (Del.) 536 ; Van Eyck v. People, 178 111. 199; Graff v. People, 208 111. 312; Miller v. John, in 111. App. 56; Freese v. State, 159 Ind. 597; Smithern v. Waddle, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 453; How- ard v. Com., no Ky. 356; Chadwell v. Com., 69 S. W. Rep. 1082, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 818; People v. McGarry, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 1 47, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 10; Carson v. Hawley, 82 Minn. 204 ; State v. Gatlin, 170 Mo. 354; State v. Dotson, 26 Mont. 305; Cohn v. Saidel, 71 N. H. 558; Trevino v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 609; Segrest v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 845; Nelson v. State, 43 Tex. Crim: 553 ; Barber v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 515. Made After Completion or Abandonment of Enterprise — United States. — Fitzpatrick v. U. S., 178 U. S. 304; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 0. Hillmon, 107 Fed. Rep. 834, 46 C. C. A. 668. Alabama. — James v. State, 115 Ala. 83; Everage v. State, 113 Ala. 102; Ferguson v. State, 134 Ala. 63, 92 Am. St. Rep. 17. Arkansas. — Willis v. State, 67 Ark. 234. California. — People v. Collum, 122 Cal. 186; People v. Opie, 123 Cal. 294. 114 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 713 714 713. See note i. 714. IV. What Admissions Abe Receivable — 1. Generally — Admissions Stated as Facts. — See notes I, 2. Admissions of Law, — See note 3. Admissions for Sake of Compromise. — See note 4. Connecticut. — Smith v. Brockett, 69 Conn. 492. Georgia. — Howard v. State, 109 Ga. 137 ; Suttles v. Sewell, 117 Ga. 214. Kansas. — State v. Rogers, 54 Kan. 683. Kentucky. — Richards v. Com., 67 S. W. Rep. 818, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 14; Frazier v. Com., 76 S. W. Rep. 28, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 461 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, 82 S. W. Rep,. 271, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 544. Louisiana. — State v. Johnson, 47 La. Ann. 1225. Massachusetts. — Com. v. Hunton, 168 Mass. 130; Com. v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184. Michigan. — Seitz v. Starks, (Mich. 1904) 08 N. W. Rep. 852, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 978. Missouri. — State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98. New York. — Douglas v. McDermott, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 8; People u. Butler, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 508; Lederer v. Adler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 564; Breterman v. Adler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 92 N. Y. Supp. 1117. Oregon. — State v. Tice, 30 Oregon 457; State v. Hinkle, 33 Oregon 93 ; State v. Aiken, 41 Oregon 294. Pennsylvania. — Marshall v. Faddis, 199 Pa. St. 397. Texas. — Joy v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 433 ; Sessions v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 62; Price v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 596 ; Dawson v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 9, so ; McHenry v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 542; Faulkner v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 311 ; Nix v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 764. Vermont. — State v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690. Not Competent Against One Made Before His Connection with the Enterprise, — State v. Walker, 124 Iowa 414; Smith v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 936. Contra, Com. v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184. 71$. 1. Foundation Must Be Laid Before Admissions Beceivable — United States. — • Kan- sas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 Fed. Rep. 344, 47 C. C. A. 384 ; Morning Journal Assoc, v. Duke, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 657, affirming 120 Fed. Rep. 860. Alabama. — Turner v. State, 124 Ala. 59; Langford v. State, 130 Ala. 74. California. — People v. Kelly, 133 Cal. 1. Iowa. — Hackett v. Freeman, 103 Iowa 296; Hertrich v. Hertrich, 114 Iowa 643, 89 Am. St. Rep. 389. Kentucky. — Stovall v. Com., 62 S. W. Rep. 536, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 103; Hines v. Com., 62 S. W. Rep. 732, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 119; Strange v. Com., 64 S. W. Rep. 980, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1234. Michigan. — Krementz v. Howard, 109 Mich. 466; Henrich v. Saier, 124 Mich. 86. Minnesota. — ■ Matthews v. Hershey Lumber Co., 65 Minn. 372. Missouri. — Wood v. Carpenter, 166 Mo. 465 ; State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98; State v. Austin, 183 Mo. 478; J. I. Case Plow Works v. Ross, 74 Mo. App. 437- Nebraska. — O'Brien v. State, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 649. New York. — Lent v. Shear, 160 N. Y. 462; People v. Smith, 162 N. Y. 520; Pfeffer v. Kling, 171 N. Y. 668, affirming 58 N. Y. App. Div. 179; Dduglas v. McDermott, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 8. Pennsylvania. — Marshall v. Faddis, 199 Pa. St. 397- Texas. — Cranfill v. Hayden, (Tex. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 609, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. '903) 75 S. W. Rep. 573; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Padgitt, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 800; Ft. Worth Live-Stock Commission Co. v. Hitson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 915; San Antonio Gas Co. v. State, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 118; Young v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 153; Nix v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 764. What a Sufficient Foundation. — State v. Crof- ford, 121 Iowa 395; State v. Walker, 124 Iowa 414; State v. Moore, 32 Oregon 65. When Beceivable Before Prima Facie Case Estab- lished. — Wright v. Stewart, 130 Fed. Rep. 905 ; People v. Donnolly, 143 Cal. 394; Freese v. State, 159 Ind. 597; People v. McGarry, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 147, 11 Detroit Leg. N. . 10 ; State v. Nell, 79 Md. App. 243 ; Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723. See also State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132. 714. 1. Fitzgerald v. Coleman, 114 111. App. 25- Mere Expressions of Opinion resting upon no actual knowledge of any facts to sustain them are inadmissible as admissions. Aschenbach'i/. Keene, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 600. 2. Conkling v. Weatherwax, 181 N. Y. 258. 3. State v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 466; Rawlings v. Neal, 122 N. Car. 173. See also Keene v. Low- enthal, 83 Miss. 204. Misapprehension of Legal Bights. — Fleming v. Lay, 109 Fed. Rep. 952, 48 C. C A. 748. r 4. Admissions with a View to a Compromise — United States. — Collins v. U. S., 35 Ct. CI. 122. Alabama. — Fiebelman v. Manchester F. Assur. Co., 108 Ala. 180. Colorado. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 26 Colo. 329, reversing 10 Colo. App. 87, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 714; Thomas v. Carey, 26 Colo. 485 ; Rankin v. Un- derwood, 9 Colo. App. 158. Connecticut. — Fowles v. Allen, 64 Conn. 350. Georgia. — Thornton v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 121, 94 Am. St. Rep. 99; Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872. Idaho. — Kroetch v. Empire Mill Co., (Idaho 1903) 74 Pac. Rep. 868. Illinois. — Harrison v. Trickett, 57 111. App. 515; Grand Prairie Co-operative Grain Assoc. v. Riordan, 61 111. App. 457; Matthiessen, etc., Zinc Co. v. Ferris, 72 111. App. 684 ; Gehm v. People, 87 111. App. 158; American Ins. Co. v. Walston, in 111. App. 133. Indiana. — Halstead v. Coen, 31 Ind. App. 302, ?'5 715-716 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 715. 716. See note i. See note I. Iowa. — Kassing v. Walter, (Iowa 1896) 65 N. W. Rep. 832; Hondeck v. Merchants', etc., Ins. Co., 102 Iowa 303; R"dd v. Dewey, 121 Iowa 454. Kansas. — Myers v. Goggerty, 10 Kan. App. 190. Kentucky. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Colly, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 536- Maine. — Beaudette v. Gagne, 87 Me. 534. Maryland. — Pentz v. Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co., 92 Md. 444. Massachusetts. — Higgins v. Shepard, 182 Mass. 364; Hutchinson v. Nay, 183 Mass. 355. Michigan. — Finlay Brewing Co. v. Prost, in Mich. 635; Fox v. Barrett, 117 Mich. 162; Musselman Grocer Co. v. Casler, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 997- Missouri. — Gorham v. Auerswald, 59 M °- App. 77; Fink v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 60 Mo. App. 673, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 269. Nebraska. — Callen v. Rose, 47 Neb. 638; Wright v. Morse, 53 Neb. 3 ; Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Stoddard, 52 Neb. 745. See Creighton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 527. New Hampshire. — Greenfield v. Kennett, 69 N. H. 419. New York. — Tennant v. Dudley, 144 N. Y. 504 ; Doyle v. Levy, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 350 ; Shilaud v. Loeb, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 565. Com- pare Hopkins 0. Rodgers, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 749. Pennsylvania. — Fisher v. Fidelity Mut. L. Assoc, 188 Pa. St. 1; Green v. Bauer, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 372. South Carolina. — Gibbes v. McCraw, 45 S. Car. 184; Robertson v. Blair, 56 S. Car. 96; Norris v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 57 S. Car. 358. South Dakota. — Reagan v. McKibben, 11 S. Dak. 270. Texas. — San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Stone, (Tex. Civ, App. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 461. Offers " Without Prejudice." — Bowers v. Hanna, 101 Iowa, 660, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 714. In Richardson v. International Pottery Co., 63 N. J. L. 248, it was held that the offer to compromise was admissible unless made with- out prejudice, or the party making it had been induced thereto by conduct of the other party. Negotiations to Effect Compromise Must Appear. — Teasley v. Bradley, no Ga. 497, 78 Am. St. Rep. 113; Person v. Bowe, 79 Minn. 238; Fer- guson v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 664 ; Hunter v. Helsley/98 Mo. App. 616 ; Hughes v. Rowan, 27 Mont. 500; Aultman v. Martin, 49 Neb. 103; Cochran v. Baker, 34 Oregon 555 ; Draper v. Horton, 22 R. I. 592. Admissions Subsequent to Negotiations. — Ad- missions by a party to a third person, that he had offered the injured party a certain amount as damages for the injuries committed, are ad- missible to show the damage where the evidence goes no further. Story v. Nidiffer, (Cal. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 692. Offers to Confess Judgment. — An Offer to Con- fess Judgment, if not accepted, is not admissible against the party making it. Tyler v. Hamilton, to8 Ky. 120; Kelley v. Combs, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 476; Walbridge v. Barrett, 118 Mich. 433. 715. 1. Offers to Buy Peace. — Holy Cross Gold Min., etc., Co. v. O'Sullivan, 27 Colo. 237 ; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Wallace, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 478; Ward v. Munson, 105 Mich. 647 ; Columbia Planing Mill Co. v. American F. Ins. Co., 58 Mo. App. 204 ; Herman v. St. Louis R. Co., 77 Mo. App. 377 ; Lehigh Valley Ter- minal R. Co. v. Currie, 54 N. J. Eq. 84 ; Ten- nant v. Dudley, 144 N. Y. 504; Roos v. Decker, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 168. Evidence of a Settlement with a Third Person, injured in the same casualty, is inadmissible. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Wallace, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 478. 716. 1. Admissions of Independent Facts — Alabama. — Watson v. Reed, 129 Ala. 388; Matthews v. Farrell, 140 Ala. 298. California. — Rose v. Rose, 112 Cal. 341. Colorado. — Miller v. Kinsel, (Colo. App. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 1075; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 10 Colo. App. 87. Georgia. — Teasley v. Bradley, 120 Ga. 373. Illinois. — Lusk v. Throop, 189 111. 127, af- firming 89 111. App. 509 ; Thorn v. Hess, 51 111. App. 274; McKinzil v. Stretch, 53 111. App. 184. Iowa. — Bowers v. Hanna, 101 Iowa 660; Rosenberger v. Marsh, 108 Iowa 47. Kentucky. — -Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Manion, 113 Ky. 7, 101 Am. St. Rep. 345, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 716; List v. List, 82 S.' W. Rep. 446, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 691. Maine. — Beaudette v. Gagne, 87 Me. 534. Massachusetts. — Snow v. New York, etc., R, Co., 185 Mass. 321. Minnesota. — Person v. Bowe, 79 Minn. 238. Nebraska. — Gatzmeyer v. Peterson, (Neb, 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 974. See also Stuht v. Sweesy, 48 Neb. 767. Nevada. — ■ Quinn v. White, 26 Nev. 42. New Hampshire. — Jenness v. Jones, 68 N. H. 475- New York. — Armour v. Gaffey, 165 N. Y. 630, affirming 30 N. Y. App. Div. 121; Hess v. Van Auken, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 11 Misc. (N. Y.) 422 ; Collins v. McGuire, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 443- North Carolina. — Tapp v. Dibrell, 134 N, Car. 546. Rhode Island. — Draper v. Horton, 22 R. I. 592. Texas. — Rotan Grocery Co. v. Martin, (Tex, Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep, 706; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Lock, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 426 ; Blake v. Austin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 571 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 28. Washington. — Long v. Pierce County, 22 Wash. 330, Wisconsin. — Pym v. Pym, 118 Wis. 662, Whether the admissions are independent facts or offers to compromise is a question for the jury. Kassing v. Ordway, iop Iowa 611. Jib Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 716-717 716. Admissions under DnreBs. — See notes 2, 3. 2. Parol Admissions in Pais. — See note 5. 717. 3. Documentary Admissions. — See note 3. 716. 2. Notara v. De Kamalaris, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 337. 3. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Sternberger, 8 Kan. App. 131 ; Parks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 301. 5. Admissions by Telephone. — Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill, 178 Mass. 304; Herendeen Mfg. Co. v. Moore, 66 N. J. L. 74. 717. 3. Zachry v. Nolan, 66 Fed. Rep. 467, 30 U. S. App. 244 ; Wolff v. Famous Mut. Sav. Fund, etc., Assoc, 67 Mo. App. 678 ; McCul- lough v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 186 Pa. St. 1 12; Moore v. Waco Bldg. Assoc, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 404. Will. — A statement in a will that a certain legatee was the adopted daughter of the testa- trix was an admission against interest, and ad- missible to prove adoption in a contest with a devisee under the will involving that ques- tion. White v. Holman, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 152. Letters. — Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310; Sanders v. State, 113 Ga. 267; Hansen v. Wayer, 10 1 111. App. 212; Rosenberger v. Marsh, 108 Iowa 47 ; Upton v. Adeline Sugar Factory Co., 109 La. 670 ; Walter v. Victor G. Bloede Co., 94 Md. 80; Mead v. Randall, 11 1 Mich. 268 ; Lowrey v. Danforth, 95 Mo. App. 441 ; Eppens, etc., Co. v. Littlejohn, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 22; Rand v. Whipple, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 62 ; Lewis Pub. Co. v. Lenz, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 451 ; Ravenswood Bank v. Reneker, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 192 ; St. Paul White Lead, etc., Co. v. Tibbetts, 13 S. Dak. 446; Barbee v. Spivey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 34S ; Downey v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 541 ; Crow v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 392; Bell v. Gund, no Wis. 271. But the introduction of letters by one party admits the whole correspondence on the sub- ject. Darling v. Klock, 165 N. Y. 623, af- firming 33 N. Y. App. Div. 270. Where a candidate for the office of mayor of an incorporated city published a letter stat- ing that, if elected, he would agree to a reduc- tion of the salary of that officer, the letter was held admissible against him in an action to recover the difference in the salary paid him and that paid his predecessor. Boyle v. Ogden City, 24 Utah 443. Notes, Bonds, Etc. — Recitals in a bond are admissible against the obligors. Hunt v. Card, 94 Me. 386. An unsigned note drawn by the defendant, but which he refused to execute, is admissible to show the amount of his indebtedness. Tur- renstine v. Grigsby, 118 Ala. 380. A detinue bond is admissible against the surety who subsequently claims the property, the subject of the suit in detinue, though not conclusive. Collier v. Dick, 111 Ala. 263. An unpaid note retaining title to personal property may be admitted against the maker on a question as to his title to the property arising between him and his vendee. Jensen v. McCornick, 26 Utah 142. Accounts Rendered by a Party. — Atkinson v. Burt, 65 Ark. 316; Keith v. Electrical Engi- neering Co., 136 Cal. 178; Nichols v. New Britain, (Conn. 1905) 60 All. Rep. 655; Patter- son v. Houston, 92 111. App. 624; Foster. Stand- ard L., etc., Ins. Co., 34 Oregon 125. And see the title Accounts, ante, p. 57. Where a statement of account between parties is checked over by them and signed, it is admissible as showing the status of account between them. Miller v. Campbell Commission Co., 13 Okla. 75. Entries in the Books of a Party, Made by Himself, are admissible in evidence against him. Wal- lace v. Bernheim, 63 Ark. 108; Plummer v. Struby-Estabrooke Mercantile Co., 23 Colo. 190; Wait v. Com., 113 Ky. 821; Columbus Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kriete, 87 111. App. 51; Second Borrowers, etc., Bldg. Assoc, v. Coch- rane, 103 111. App. 29; Magi's Succession, 107 La. 208; Moise's Succession, 107 La. 717; Steam Stone-Cutter Co. v. Scott, 157 Mo. 520; Copeland v. Boston Dairy Co., 184 Mass. 207; Commercial Bank v. Bolton, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 547 ; Saugerties Bank v. Mack, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 494; Goetting v. Weber, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 503 ; Kirkpatrick v. Goldsmith, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 265 ; Rowan v. Chenoweth, 49 W. Va. 287, 87 Am. St. Rep. 796. Or against those claiming, under him. Banning v. Marleau, 121 Cal. 240. Where the general manager of a corporation was required by the by-laws to have correct accounts kept, the books of the corporation were held admissible to show his negligence and the amount of his liability. San Pedro Lum- ber Co. v. Reynolds, 121 Cal. 74. Entries in the books and records of a state treasurer are admissible against him and the sureties on his official bond to show his de- falcation. State v. Paxton, 65 Neb. no. Entries in the Books of a Corporation made by an officer, whose duty it was to keep such books, showing moneys received by him, are admissible against him as admissions that he received the sums entered. Delbridge v. Lake, etc., Bldg., etc., Assoc, 98 111. App. 96 ; Second Borrowers, etc., Bldg. Assoc, v. Cochrane, 103 111. App. 29. And so, too, entries in the books of a corporation kept by or under the super- vision of its manager are evidence against the manager. Kane v. Schuylkill F. Ins. Co., 199 Pa. St. 198. Tax List. — Waller v. Leonard, (Tex. Cir. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 799, 89 Tex. 307; Jones v. Cummins, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 661. A tax return made by a party to the suit is admissible on the question as to his assets in the year of the return. Mashburn v. Dannen- berg Co., 117 Ga. 567. An unsworn tax list, acquiesced in by the 'de- fendant, is admissible on the question of the value of the property assessed. Steam Stone- Cutter Co. v. Scott, 157 Mo. 520. A tax list, being an admission for a special purpose, was held inadmissible against the per- son making it in a suit for the recovery of "7 718-719 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 718. See note 2. 719. 4. Judicial Admissions - • Admission! Made in Pleadings. — See note 3. insurance on the property taxed. German Mut. Ins. Co. v. Niewedde, 11 Ind. App. 624. Partnership Books. — Turner v. Turner, 98 Md. 22 ; Ryder v. Jacobs, 196 Pa. St. 386 ; Hotopp v. Huber, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 327- Compare Cody v. Gainesville First Nat. Bank, 103- Ga. 789. Bank Books, Etc. — Globe Sav. Bank v. Na- tional Bank of Commerce, 64 Neb. 413; Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577; Pauly v. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8, 48 Am. St. Rep. 98 ; Atlanta Trust, etc., Co. v. Close, US Ga. 939. A depositor's pass book is admissible in favor of his executors to show there was no credit of the proceeds of a note sued on by the bank. Paducah First Nat. Bank v. Wisdom, 11 1 Ky. 135- A pass book is admissible against the de- positor where he has gone over the books with the cashier of the bank and acquiesced in the account as there stated. State v. McCauley, 17 Wash. 88, following Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 96. A slip of paper on which a bank cashier entered the deposits and withdrawals of a customer is admissible against the bank to prove the account. L'Herbette v. Pittsfield Nat. Bank, 162 Mass. 137. Memoranda, Receipts, Etc. — St. Joseph Hy- draulic Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co., 156 Ind. 665; People v. Quimby, 134 Mich. 625, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 618 ; Putnam v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 13, reversing (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 738; Matter of Woodward, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 286. A memorandum of time made by the de- fendant's authorized agent is admissible against the defendant. Selber v. Springbrook Trout Farm, 19 Wash. 49. Telegrams. — A telegram sent by a third per- son, but approved by the defendant, and the answer thereto are admissible against the de- fendant. Farnsworth v. Nevada Co., 102 Fed. Rep. 578, 42 C. C. A. 509. The Recitals in an Act of the legislature passed in the interest of a corporation are receivable as admissions made by the corporation. Cochen v. Methodist Protestant Church, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 239. A Bill of Particulars furnished by a party to a cause is competent evidence against him. Lee v. Heath, 61 N. J. L. 250. Contract. — Where the defendant had con- structed a dam flooding the plaintiff's land, and entered into a written contract admitting the construction of the dam and agreeing to change it so as to relieve the plaintiff, but failed to carry out the agreement, the contract was held competent as an admission by him in a suit by the plaintiff for damages for flooding the land. Lynch v. Troxell, 207 Pa. St. 162. Deed. — A grantor is bound by the recitals in his deed. Noble v. Worthy, 1 Indian Ter. 458. Inventory.. — An inventory filed in the Or- phan's Court by an administratrix is admissi- ble against her. Prentz v. Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co., 92 Md. 444; Miller v. Garrecht, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 133. Pamphlets. — Where pamphlets issued by a corporation state that a certain fund is held as a trust fund, they are admissible against the chief officer of the corporation to prove that he knew such fund was a trust fund. Put- nam v. Gunning, 162 Mass. 552. Statements Made in a Proof of Death are admissible against the party making them, in an action on a life insurance policy. Siebelist v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 221. Record in Bankruptcy. — Where a record in bankruptcy contains an admission of indebted- ness on a note, it is competent evidence against the bankrupt in a suit on the note subsequently brought. Nicholson v. Snyder, 97 Md. 415. Release, — Where the defendant relied upon a written release from a debt, it was held to be an admission by him that the debt existed at the date of the release. Bement v. Ohio Valley Banking, etc., Co., 99 Ky. 109, 59 Am. St. Rep. 445. So where the plaintiff had settled with a rail- road company for the destruction of his prop- erty by fire, and executed a release to the com- pany, he was concluded, in a suit against the insurance company on his policy, from claiming that the railroad company did not destroy his property. Sims u. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 101 Wis. 586. Reports of Agents or Officers. — A report made by a servant in the scope of his authority and duty is admissible against the master. Rogers v. New York, etc., Bridge, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 141 ; Weigley v. Kneeland, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 47 ; Roche v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co., 140 Cal. 563. Reports of Sales of Liquors in a Prohibition County are admissible against the party making them, as admissions against interest, though the statute requiring them was unconstitutional. People v. Robinson, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 12, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 857. A Schedule Piled in Bankruptcy Proceedings is admissible to show the insolvency of the bankrupt. Fales, etc., Mach. Co. v. Browning, 68 S. Car. 13. An Entry in a Ship's Log is admissible against the party making it. The New Foundland, 89 Fed. Rep. 510. Writings Sous Seing Prive" may be construed as admissions where they are not denied by the party against whom they are enforceable. Thurston v. Hughes, 16 Quebec Super. Ct. 472. 71 §. 2. When Instrument Inoperative for Purpose Intended. — Profile, etc., Hotels Co. v. Bickford, 72 N. H. 73 ; Crow v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 392. Recitals in a Deed. — Sperry v. Wesco, 26 Oregon 483. 719. 3. General Rule as to Admissions in Pleadings — California. — See Bollinger v. Wright, 143 Cal. 292. Colorado. — Mutzenburg v. McGowan, 10 Colo. App. 486. Connecticut. — Connecticut Insane Hospital v. Brookfield, 69 Conn. 1. Illinois. — West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Loewe, 58 111. App. 606 ; Wheatley v. Chicago Trust, etc., Bank, 64 111. App. 612; Glanz v. Smith, 76 118 Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 719 111. App. 630. See also Stuart v. Harris, 69 111. App. 668 ; Potter v. Fitchburg Steam Engine Co., no 111. App. 430. Iowa. — Murry v. Weber, 103 Iowa 477; Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Commercial ' State • Bank, 104 Iowa 682 ; Mcintosh v. Coulthard, (Iowa 1902) 88-N. W. Rep. 1069. Kentucky. — Com. v. Lewis, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 438; Edwards v. Mattingly, 107 Ky. 332 ; Vollman Buggy Body Co. v. Spry, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1092 ; Palmer Trans- fer Co. v. Eaves, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 750. Louisiana. — See Trouilly's Succession, 52 La. Ann. 276. , Maryland. — Hensel v. Johnson, 94 Md. 729. Michigan. — Brinkerhoff v. Peek, 1 14 Mich. 628. Minnesota. — Evenson v. Keystone Mfg. Co., 83 Minn. 164. Mississippi. — ,Hall v. Waddill, 78 Miss. 18. Missouri. — Price v. Clevenger, 99 Mo. App. 536 ; Harrison v. McReynolds, 183 Mo. 533. Montana. — Hoffman v. Gallatin County, 18 Mont. 224; Aikens v. Frank, 21 Mont. 192; Christiansen v. Aldrich, (Mont. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 1007. Nebraska. — Best v. Stewart, 48 Neb. 859 ; Halt County v. Scott, 53 Neb. 176; Rohman v. Gaiser, 53 Neb. 474. New Jersey. — Tate v. Field, 56 N. J. Eq. 35; Craft v. Schlag, 61 N. J. Eq. 567. New York. — Cromwell v. Hughes, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 12 Misc. (N. Y.) 372; Finklestein v. Barnett, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 488 ; Browne v. Stecher Lith. Co., 24 N. Y. App. Div. 480 ; Johnson v. Thorn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 771 ; Jaeger v. Koenig, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 780; Traitel v. Dwyer, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 61 N. Y. Supp. 1100; Dwyer v. McLoughlin, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y) 510; Dimon v. Keery, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 318; Grant v. Pratt, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 490; Sangunitto v. Goldey, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 78 ; Keating v. Mott, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 156 ; Fiebiger v. Forbes, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 612. North Carolina. — Cook v. Guirkin, 19 N. Car. 13; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. Car. 69; Tiddy v. Graves, 127 N. Car. 502, rehearing and reversing 126 N. Car. 620. Ohio. — Fisher v. Tryon, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 556, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 541 ; Hart v. Sarvis, 3 Ohio Dec. 708, 3 Ohio N. P. 316. Rhode Island. — O'Connell v. King, 59 Atl. Rep. 926. Oregon. — Veasey v. Humphreys, 27 Oregon 515; Landigan v. Mayer, 32 Oregon 245, 67 Am. St. Rep. 521. Pennsylvania. — Goucher v. Providence Wash- ington Ins. Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 230 ; Patterson v. Hausbeck, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 36. South Carolina. — Littlejohn v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 45 S. Car. 181. South Dakota. — Commercial Bank v. Jack- son, 9 S. Dak. 605. Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Vance, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 167; Pan- handle Nat. Bank v. Security Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 96 ; Emerson v. Kneezell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 551. Washington. — Goldwater v. Burnside, 22 Wash. 213. West Virginia. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rogers, 52 W. Va. 450, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 719. Wisconsin. — Lindner v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 93 Wis. 526; Duncan v. Duncan, in Wis. 75. An admission in a pleading that a certain instrument attached thereto is a lease is of little weight as against the terms of the instru- ment. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 135 Mo. 173- In Texas the rule is that no statements of the answer are admissible against the defendant where a general denial is filed. Hynes v. Pack- ard, 92 Tex. 44. Where a Party Fails to Rely upon an Admission in the Pleadings, and introduces evidence to controvert his own allegations, such admission is not binding. Dressner v. Manhattan Deliv- ery Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 92 N. Y. Supp. 800. A Reconvention or Cross-Bill may be used by the opposite party as evidence to support his claim if introduced by him for that purpose. Lewis v. Crouch, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 1009. Admissions Made by Party as Witness. — Kings- bury v. Joseph, 94 Mo. App. 298 ; Holmes v. Leadbetter, 95 Mo. App. 419; Cogan v. Cass Ave., etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 179. Deposition. — Gay v. Rogers, 109 Ala. 624; Dimon v. Keery, 54 N. Y. App.- Div. 318. Suppressed Deposition. — See Joy v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 433. Payment of Money into Court. — See Craw v. Abrams, (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 639, affirmed on rehearing 97 N. W. Rep. 296. ' Pleading Stricken Out. — See Dunson v. Nacog- doches County, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 9. Such pleading must be formally offered in evidence to render its admission available. Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruff corn Co.; 117 Iowa 157. Pleading Withdrawn — California. — Miles v. Woodward, 115 Cal. 308; Ruddock Co. v. John- son, 135 Cal. xix, 6*7 Pac. Rep. 680. Georgia. — Alabama Midland R. Co. v. Guil- ford, 114 Ga. 627; Alabama Midland R. Co. v. Guilford, 119 Ga. 523; Wachstein v. Germania Bank, 120 Ga. 229. Iowa. — Ludwig v. Blackschere, 102 Iowa 366 ; Caldwell v. Drummond, (Iowa 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1 1 22. Compare Leyner v. Leyner, 123 Iowa 185. Kentucky. — Wyles v. Berry, 76 S. W. Rep. 126, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 606. Missouri. — Walser v. Wear, 141 Mo. 443; Mahan v. Brinnell, 94 Mo. App. 165. New York. — Herzfeld v. Reinach, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 326 ; Breese v. Graves, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 322. Oklahoma. — Lane Implement Co. v. Lowder, 11 Okla. 61. Oregon. — Sayre v. Mohney, 35 Oregon 141, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 719. South Carolina. — Willis v. Tozer, 44 S. Car. 1. Texas. — Itasca First Nat. Bank v. Watson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 232, 95 Tex. 351 ; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. De Walt, 96 Tex. 121 ; Barrett v. Featherston, (Tex. Civ. 119 *20 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 720. They Are Admissible Also Against Him in Another Suit. — See note I. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 11, 89 Tex. 567; Ryan v. Dutton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 546 ; Goodbar Shoe Co. v. Sims, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 1065; Wright v. U. S. Mortgage Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) S4 S. W. Rep. 368; Jordan v. Young, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 762 ; Southern Pac. Co. V . Wellington, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 856; Prouty v. Musquiz, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 568; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 198; Orange Rice Mill Co. o. Mcllhinney, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 428; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Coggin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 1053 ; Galloway v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 32. But see contra, Southern Pac. Co. v. Wellington, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 11 14; McGregor v. Sima, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 1 02 1. Utah. — Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. Box, 13 Utah 494. Wisconsin. — Schultz v. Culbertson, (Wis. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 234. A withdrawn pleading is available for im- peachment purposes. Matter of O'Connor, 118 Cal. 69. To be available as evidence such pleading must be introduced at the trial. Leach v. Hill, 97 Iowa 81. Admissions in an abandoned pleading are not conclusive. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 148 Ind. 266; Bernard v. Pittsburg Coal Co., (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 396, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 246; McDonald v. Nugent, 122 Iowa 651; Reeves ■v. Cress, 80 Minn. 466 ; Mahoney v. Butte Hardware Co., 19 Mont. 377 ; Miller v. Nicodemus, 58 Neb. 352; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Dewalt, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 71 S. W. Rep. 774- Where inconsistent defenses were filed, and defendant was required to elect between them, the pleading withdrawn was held inadmissible on the issue raised by the other. Lane v. Bryant, 100 Ky. 138. A pleading signed and verified by an attorney, superseded by an amended pleading, is not ad- missible as evidence against his client, without a showing that the client directed the drawing of the pleading or sanctioned it as drawn. Cor- bett v. Clough, 8 S. Dak. 176. In Geraty v. National Ice Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 174, the court held that a complaint veri- fied by a guardian ad litem on information and belief, was not admissible on trial under an amended complaint. T/nnecessary Pleadings. — In Sims v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 101 Wis. 586, it was held that ad- missions made in a pleading treated at the trial as a proper pleading were binding on the pleader, though the pleading was wholly un- necessary. Knowledge of Contents. — A party testifying in his own behalf cannot be impeached by the allegations of his pleadings unless he has knowl- edge of the contents or authorized the same. Denison, e.tc, R. Co. v. Foster, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 578. See also Schlotterer v. Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 330. Bringing Suit Against a Foreign Corporation in a state in which it does business is an ad- mission by the plaintiff that it does business and is to be found within the state. Southern R. Co. v. Mayes, (CCA.) 113 Fed. Rep. 84. "Whole Pleading Must Be Introduced. — A party desiring to avail himself of admissions in the pleading of his adversary must introduce the whole pleading, whether favorable or unfavor- able to him. Young v. Y^sX-z., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 542; Steinhardt v. Baker, 25 N. Y. App. Div. 197 ; Hoes v. Nagele, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 374; Garrie v. Schmidt, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 753 ; Shrady v. Shrady, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 9. Answering a Garnishment issued upon a judg- ment fully described in the garnishment is an admission by the garnishee of the existence of the judgment. Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Pol- lock, 104 Ala. 402. Admissions Made in an Application for Appeal are competent against the party making them, on a trial of the cause after reversal. Gal- veston, etc., R. Co. v. Eckles, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 651. Motions. — Where the defendant in a motion to require the plaintiff to give bond for costs stated that the plaintiff had become a nonresi- dent since beginning suit, this was held an ad- mission that the plaintiff was a resident when the suit was filed. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Brown, (Indian Ter. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 915. Admissions in a. Motion in Arrest of Judgment are admissible against the party making them in a subsequent suit. Ager v. State, 162 Ind. 538. Requested Instructions. — The defendant in an action for damages for injury to a team re- quested an instruction in which he referred to the team as " plaintiff's team," and it was held an admission of title in the plaintiff, and Suffi- cient proof of ownership to sustain the verdict. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pirschbacher, 63 111. App. 144. Judgment Being Rendered upon Admissions Made by Mistake in the pleadings, the party may show such mistake and be relieved by the court. East v. O'Connor, 19 Ont. Pr. 301. At Law Each Flea Is Independent of Every Other and the admission contained in one plea cannot be used to limit the effect of another. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Newell, 113 111. App. 263. 7!20. 1. When Admissible in Another Suit — United States. — General Electric Co. v. Jona- than Clark, etc., Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 170. Alabama. — Hartsell v. Masterson, 132 Ala. 275. See also Tennessee Coal, etc., Co. v. Linn, 123 Ala. 112, 82 Am. St. Rep. 108. Florida. — Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743 ; Booth v. Lenox, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 566. Georgia. — Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 94 Ga. 356 ; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Bruns- wick Grocery Co., 113 Ga. 786. Illinois. — Wadsworth v. Duncan, 164 111. 360 ; Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co., 103 111. App. 625. Indiana. — Holland v. Spell, 144 Ind. 561. Kansas. — Murphy v. Hindman, 58 Kan. 184. Kentucky. — Paducah First Nat. Bank v. Wis- dom, in Ky. 135. Maine. — Rockland v. Farnsworth, 89 Me. 481. Vol. I. ADMISSIONS. 720 Michigan. — Mack v. Cole, 130 Mich. 84, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 1148. Missouri. — Bowman v. Globe Steam-Heating Co., 80 Mo. App. 628. Montana. — Tague v. John Caplice Co., 28 Mont. 51. Nebraska. — Paxton v. State, 59 Neb. 460, 80 Am. St. Rep. 689 ; Paxton v. State, 60 Neb. 763. See Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Milli- ken, 62 Neb. 116. New York. — Taft v. Little, 178 N. Y. 127, reversing 78 N. Y. App. Div. 74. Oklahoma. — Myers v. Perry First Presb. Church, 11 Okla. 544. Oregon. — Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Oregon 309 ; Walker v. Harold, 44 Oregon 205. Texas. — Cuneo v . De Cuneo, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 436. West Virginia. — Hast v. Piedmont, etc., R. Co., 52 W. Va. 396, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 729; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rogers, 52 W. Va. 450, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 720. See also International, etc., R. Co. v. Mulliken, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 663. Admissions made in pleadings in a civil suit are not competent evidence against the party filing them in a criminal prosecution against him. Farmer v. State, 100 Ga. 41. A plea was properly excluded where the party offering it failed to offer the complaint to which it was filed. Gardner v. Meeker, 169 111. 40. An Admission of What an Absent Witness Would Swear, made to avoid a continuance, is not ad- missible at a subsequent term of the court at which the witness is present. Cutler v. Cutler, 130 N. Car. 1, 89 Am. St. Rep. 854. A Bill Brought to Enjoin the Frosecntion of an actipn at law may be received as an admission of the facts stated therein. Farr v. Rouillard, 172 Mass. 303; Aultman v. Martin, 49 Neb. 103. But see Grief v. Seligman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 533- Affidavits. — In re Henschel, 114 Fed. Rep. 968, modifying 109 Fed. Rep. 861 ; Orr v. Trav- elers Ins. Co., 120 Ala. 647; Stickney v. Ward, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 667; Hastings" v. Speer, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 115. See also Cornelissen v. Ort, 132 Mich. 294, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 604. An affidavit filed in another cause is admis- sible against the party making it. Knight v. Rothschild, 172 Mass. 546. The affidavit must be formally offered in evi- dence to render it available. Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co., 117 Iowa 157. Admissions of a mail carrier made in an affidavit filed in a criminal case are admissible and conclusive against him in a subsequent proceeding for extra pay for expedited service. Garman v. U. S., 34 Ct. CI. 237. An affidavit made by an ancestor, since de- ceased, in an action brought against him, which supported the bona fides of his deed, was held admissible in favor of his grantee and against his heir in a suit by the latter to avoid the deed, but it is not conclusive. Donnelly v. Rees, 141 Cal. 56. Depositions. — Spann v. Torbert, 130 Ala. 541 ; Ferrell v. State, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 220; Gubernator v. Rettalack, 86 Mo. App. 184 ; Avard v. Carpenter, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 258. A deposition taken de bene esse is admissible against the witness who is a party to the suit. McGahan v. Crawford, 47 S. Car. 566. A deposition of a party taken in a former suit is not admissible against him or his co> defendant in a later suit unless he is a neces- sary party thereto. J. I. Case Plow Works v. Ross, 74 Mo. App. 437. Admissions of a Witness — United States. — Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Bowsky, 113 Fed. Rep. 698. Indiana. — Ruble v. Bunting, 31 Ind. App. 654- Iowa. — State v. Van Tassel, 103 Iowa 6 ; Steele-Smith Grocery Co. v. Potthast, 109 Iowa 413; Frick v. Kabaker, 116 Iowa 494. Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 119; Shinkle v. Mc- Cullough, 77 S. W. Rep. 196, 25 Ky. L. Rep. "43- Michigan. — Lange v. Klatt, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 708, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 747. Minnesota. — White v. Collins, 90 Minn. 165. Missouri. — Rosenfeld V. Siegfried, 91 Mo. App. 169; Padley v. Catterlin, 64 Mo. App. 629, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1258. Nebraska. — ■ Churchill v. White, 58 Neb. 22, 76 Am. St. Rep. 64. New Jersey. — Congleton v. Schreihofer, (N. J- 1903) 54 Atl. Rep. 144. New York. — Reed v. MeCord, 160 N. Y. 330 ; Reed v. MeCord, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 381 ; Suffolk County v. Shaw, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 146 ; Sternbach v. Friedman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 418; Egyptian Flag Cigarette Co. v. Comisky, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 236; Hillman v. De Rosa, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 261. See also Petzolt v. Thiess, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 707. North Carolina. — Southern L. & T. Co. v. Benbow, 131 N. Car. 413. Oregon. — Anderson v. Adams, 43 Oregon 621. Pennsylvania. — Stevenson v. Ebervale Coal Co., 201 Pa. St. 112, 88 Am. St. Rep. 805. But admissions made by a witness are not conclusive. Owsley v. Owsley, 77 S. W. Rep. 397, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1186. Flea of Guilty in Criminal Cause Used as Admis- sion in Civil Action, — Hendle v. Geiler, (Del. 1895) 50 Atl. Rep. 632; Young v. Copple, 52 111. App. 547 ; Wesnieski v. Vanek, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 258. See also State v. La Rose, 71 N. H. 435 ; Myers v. Dillon, 39 Oregon 581, afHrmed on rehearing 39 Oregon 584. A plea of guilty to a charge of adultery is admissible, but not conclusive, in an action by the husband of the woman for damages for criminal conversation. Jones v. Cooper, 97 Iowa 735- An Agreed Statement of Facts used on the trial of a case is admissible in a later suit be- tween the same parties involving the same issues, though not conclusive. Luther v. Clay, " 100 Ga. 236. Where a judgment rendered on an agreed statement of facts has been reversed, the state- ment is competent evidence on a subsequent trial of the cause. Prestwood v. Watson, m Ala. 604; King v. Shepard, 105 Ga. 473. Answer. — An answer filed in another suit, to which plaintiff was not a party, is admissible, 721-722 ADMISSIONS. Vol. I. 721. V. Mode and Requisites of Proof — General Buie. — See note i. The Whole Admission. — See note 3. 722. See note 1. If an Admission Was Heard in a Conversation. — See note 3. but not conclusive, against the defendant in whose behalf it was filed. Vredenburg v. Baton Rouge Sugar Co., 52 La. Ann. 1666. The Answer of a Garnishee filed in a cause is admissible against him in another suit. Purcell . Burland, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 208, citing [ Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 757. Lien upon Crops for Advances. — McCaslan v. Nance, 46 S. Car. 568. 134 ADVANCEMENTS. By F. G. Bamman. 760. I. Definition. — See note i. 761. Distinguished from Gift, Debt, and Ademption. — See notes I, 2. 762. II. Origin. — See note i. III. Requisites — 1. Must Be a Completed Transfer. — See note 4. 2. The Donor Must Die Intestate — in General — Wills. — See notes 7, 8. Partial Intestacy. — See notes IO, II. 764. IV. Of What Advancement May Consist — 1. In General — statu- tory Regulation. — See note 5- 765. 2. Real Property — Voluntary Conveyance from Father to Child — Presumption. ■ — See note 4. 766. Presumption Rebuttable. — See note 2. Substantial Consideration — Presumption. — See notes 5, 6. Remainder — Reversion, etc. — - See note g. 767. 3. Personal Property — Presents of Inconsiderable Value. — See note 2. 760. 1. Advancement Defined. — Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 760 ; Waldron v. Taylor, 52 W. Va. 284, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 760. Other Definitions. — Garry v. Newton, 201 111. 170, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 760; Slaughter v. Slaughter, 21. Ind. App. 641 ; Matter of Pickenbrock, 102 Iowa 81 ; Bissell tj. Bissell, 120 Iowa 127; Schweitzer v. Schweitzer, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 625 ; Matter of Cramer, (Surrogate Ct.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 494; De Vault v. De Vault, (Term. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 361. Payment of a Debt by a father to a daughter is not an advancement, and the mere designa- tion of it as such cannot change the real facts of the transaction. Schweitzer v. Schweitzer, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 625. 761. 1. Waldron v. Tayldr, 52 W. Va. 284, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 761. An advancement constitutes no consideration for a note subsequently executed where the note was intended as a receipt. Marsh v. Crown, 104 Iowa 556. 2. McCormick v. Hanks, 105 Iowa 639; Wal- dron v. Taylor, 52 W. Va. 284, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 761. 762. 1. Provisions of Statute Similar to Certain Particular Customs. — Williams's Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339. A Gift Cannot Be Presumed when that character is not clearly given to the transaction. Matter of Robinson, (Surrogate Ct.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 551- 4. The conveyance of land to minor children at the request of their father, who bought and paid for the land, is an advancement. Rhea v. Bagley, 63 Ark. 374. Delivery of Personal Property Necessary. — But it has been held that although a, gift to be an advancement must be made in the lifetime of the donor, yet it may take effect at his death or on a contingency within a time, and still constitute an advancement Matter Of Pickeiir brock, 102 Iowa 81. 7. In re Cummings, 120 Iowa 421. 8. See Trammel v. Trammel, 148 Ind. 487. 10. Ancestor Must Die Wholly Intestate. — See Blanks v. Clark, 68 Ark. 98. 11. Messmann v. Egenberger, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 46, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 764; Kent v. Hopkins, 86 Hun (N. Y.) 611. 764. 5. Question Depends on Statute. — Wil- liams's Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339. Statute Embracing Both Real and Personal Prop- erty. — West v. Beck, 95 Iowa 520. 765. 4. Conveyance from Father to Child — Natural Love and Affection. — Howard v. How- ard, iot Ga. 224. 766. 2. Presumption as to Advancement Re- buttable. — Lisles v . Huffman, 88 Mo. App. 143- 5. Substantial Consideration — Presumption of a Purchase. — Kiger v. Terry, 119 N. Car. 456. 6. Presumption of Purchase May Be Rebutted. — Clark v. Hedden, 109 La. 147; Dobbins v. Humphreys, 171 Mo. 198. But where a father transferred to himself as guardian of his children land which was worth more than the consideration expressed in the deed, parol evidence for the purpose of showing that the excess was intended by the father as an advancement was held inadmis- sible. Miller v. Miller, 105 Ga. 305. Parol Evidence Admissible to Rebut Presumption, — Finch v. Garrett, 102 Iowa 381. 9. Remainder or Reversion May Be Subject of Advancement. — Cain v. Cain, 53 S. Car. 350, 6q Am. St. Rep. 863,* citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 766. 767. 2. Small Presents Not Prima Facie Ad- vancements. — See Carmichael v. Lathrop, 112 Mich. 301. 135 767 774 ADVA NCEMENTS. Vol. I. 767. 768. 769. Principles 771. 772. 773. 774. Question Dependent on Parent'a Means and on Circumstances. — See note 5. Will Specifying What to Be Considered as Advancements. — See note 7- Money Expended for Child's Education, Maintenance, and Travels. — See note 8. Establishing Child in Business. — See note 2. Life Insurance Policy. — See note 5. Stock Purchased in Child's Name. — See note 7. Failure of Father to Collect of Son Kent of Land Leased. — See note 3. V. Between Whom Advancements May Be Made — 1. General — Presumption. — See note 4. Indebtedness of Parent to Child. — See note 3. 2. Parent and Child — Presumption in Favor of Advancement. — See notes 4, 6. This Presumption May Be Rebutted. — See note 7. What Not Sufficient to Overcome the Presumption. — See note I. Dealings Between Mother and Child. — See note 2. 3. Husband and Wife. — See note 4. 4. Parent-in-law and Son-in-law — Personalty. — See note 9. Realty. — See notes 1, 2. Time of Transaction — Consent of Wife. — See note 4. 767. 6. Culp v. Price, 107 Iowa 133- See also McDonald v. McDonald, 86 Mo. App. 122. 7. Elliott's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. 226, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 515. See also Callender v. Woodward, (Term. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 75°- 8. Education of Child.— King v. King, 107 La. 437- Tr General and Professional Education. — If by any distinct expression of intent it is appar- ent that money expended by a father for his son's professional education was to be regarded as an advancement, the court will give effect to such intention. Garrett v. Colvin, yy Miss. 408, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 767. 768. 2. Setting Child Up in Business or Pro- fession. — St. Louis Trust Co. v. Rudolph, 136 Mo. 169, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 768. 6. Life Insurance Policy May Constitute Ad- vancement. — But 'see Vinson v. Vinson, 105 La. 30. 7. Payment of Debts. — West v. Beck, 95 Iowa 520; Matter of Pickenbrock, 102 Iowa 81. 769. 3. Hamilton v. Moore, 70 S. W. Rep. 402, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 982 ; King v. King, 107 La. 437- 4. General Rule When Title to Property Pur- chased Is Taken in Name of Another. — Euans v. Curtis, 190 111. 199, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 769. See Kern v. Howell, 180 Pa. St. 315, 57 Am. St. Rep. 641. Burden of Proof. — Ellis v. Newell, 120 Iowa 71. 771. 3. Brooks v. Summers, 100 Ky. 620, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 771 ; Schweitzer v. Schweitzer, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 625. 4. Transfer of Property from Father to Child — Presumption in Favor of Advancement. — Good- win v. Parnell, 69 Ark. 629 ; Finch v. Garrett, 102 Iowa 381 ; McDonald v. McDonald, 86 Mo. App. 122; Heft's Case, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 339. But see Kirchner v. Lenz, 114 Iowa 527. Transfer in Consideration of Release of All In- terest in Parent's EBtate. — Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 771.' The Use and Enjoyment of Land by the Owner's Child must be accounted for as an advancement. Boblett v. Barlow, (Ky. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. M5- 6. Long v. King, 117 Ala. 423 ; Ellis v. Newell, 120 Iowa 71. 7. Evidence of Contrary Intention. — Faylor v. Faylor, 136 Cal. 92; Culp v. Price, 107 Iowa 133; Grumley v. Grumley, 63 N. J. Eq. 568; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S. Car. 467 ; Williams v. Emberson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 522, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 771. 772. 1. Parent Remaining in Possession Re. ceiving the Rents. — A father's estate was held liable to his son's guardian for rents collected by the father on property which he had ad- vanced to his sons. Rhea v. Bagley, 63 Ark. 374- 773. 2. Mother and Child. — Euans v. Cur- tis, igo 111. 199, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 773 ; Murphy v. Murphy, 95 Iowa 271. ,See also Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S. Car. 467. 4. Wife Receiving Property from Husband. — Lewis v. McGrath, 191 111. 401. See Bailey v. Dobbins, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 687. Strength of Presumption. ■ — The presumption is overcome by evidence of the husband's con- trol and improvement and the admissions of the wife that the land was held in trust for her husband. Hagan v. Powers, 103 Iowa 593- 9. Gift of Personalty to Son-in-law, Prima Facie Advancement to Daughter. — Frye v. Avritt, 68 S. W. Rep. 420, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 183. Where the Release of the Husband from Jail was secured with money given for that pur- pose by his father-in-law, it was held to be prima facie not an advancement to the daugh- ter though done at her request. Booth v. Fos- ter, in Ala. 312, 56 Am. St. Rep'. 52. 774. 1. Gifts of Realty — Authorities Not Agreed. — See Rogers v. Rogers, 52 S. Car. 388. 2. See Carpenter v. Coats, 183 Mo. 52; Cal- lender v. Woodward, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 756. ■. 4. Boyer v. Boyer, 7 Ohio Dec. 52s. 7 Ohio N. P. 153. 136 Vol. I. ADVANCEMENTS. 774 778 774. 5. Grandparent and Grandchild — The Term " Child " in the Statutes Generally Held to Include " Grandchild." — See note "J. 775. Advancements Made to the Parent. — See note 3. Presumption. - — See note 4. 6. Other Eelations. — See notes 5, 7, 8. VI. How Advancements Mat Be Determined — 1. A Question of intention — See note 9. Time of the Intention. — See note 1 1 . Transfer Must Be Voluntary. — See note 1 3. 2. How Intention May Be Shown — Preponderance 776. note 1. of Evidence. — See Parol Evidence. — See notes 2, 3. Circumstances — Declarations. — ■ See note 4. 777. Subsequent Declarations. — See notes I, 2, 3. Contemporaneous Memoranda and Charges, — See note 4. 3. Intention as Determined by Will. — See, note 7 778. When Will Directs Gifts to Be Considered Advancements. — See note 1. 774. 7. Williams's Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 516. 775. 3. Grandchildren Taking Per Stirpes — Advancements to Their Parents. — Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609 ; Williams's Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 516. 4. See Boone v. Thornsbury, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 563- 5. Uncle and Niece. — See Matter of Cramer, (Surrogate Ct.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 494, wherein a transaction between uncle and niece was held not to constitute an advancement. 7. A Brother to whom the deceased gave prop- erty during his lifetime is not a " descendant " within the meaning of the West Virginia stat- ute controlling the question of advancements. Waldron v. Taylor, 52 W. Va. 284, wherein Brannon, J., in a dissenting opinion, quotes 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 775. 8. Eather.in-law and Daughter-in-law. — But it was held that where a father transferred part of his farm to his daughter-in-law, intending it as his son's distributive share in his estate, and the son acquiesced in such disposition, this, constituted an advancement to the son. Palmer v. Culbertson, 143 N. Y. 213. 9. Intention. — Moore v. Moore, 1 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 204. Comp. Schweitzer v. Schweitzer, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 625. 11. Bissell v. Bissell, 120 Iowa 127. 13. To Constitute an Advancement the Transfer Must Be Voluntary. — Bissell v. Bissell, 120 Iowa 127. 776. 1. The Intention Will Not Be Presumed. — Moore v. Moore, 1 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 204. 2. Parol. — Faylor v. Faylor, 136 Cal. 92; Justis v. Justis, (Md. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 23; Palmer v. Culbertson, 143 N. Y. 213. 3. Statute Requiring Writing. — Bartmess v. Fuller, 170 111. 193; Gary v. Newton, 201 111. 170; Young v. Young, 204 111. 430; Jones v. Dawson, 68 111. App. 70; Boden v. Mier, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 701 ; Pomeroy v. Pome- roy, 93 Wis. 262 ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 678. The Illinois statute provides that " no gift or grant shall be deemed to have been made in advancement unless so expressed in writing or charged in writing, by the intestate, as an ad- vancement, or acknowledged in writing by the child or other descendant." Under this statute it is held that any advancement which is not evidenced in the manner required by the stat- ute is in legal effect no advancement at all, however clear it may appear that it was so intended. Marshall v. Coleman, 187 111. 556. The Nebraska statute requires that advance- ments be expressed in the gift or grant to be made as such, or, that they be charged in writ- ing by the intestate as an advancement, or ac- knowledged in writing as such by the child or other descendant. Lodge v. Fitch, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 338. 4, Lisles v. Huffman, 88 Mo. App. 143. In the absence of special circumstances show- ing consideration or moral obligation for remit- tances from a mother to her son, it was held that the money should be considered advance- ments even against the intention of the mother. Heyward v. Middleton, 65 S. Car. 493. Acts and Circumstances may be proved to show that a conveyance was not intended to be an ad- vancement. Brennaman v. Schell, 212 111. 356. 777. 1. Genera] Rule as to Subsequent Decla- rations. — Howard v. Howard, 101 Ga. 224; Ellis v. Newell, 120 Iowa 71 ; Dare's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 58 ; Garner v. Taylor, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 758. 2. When Subsequent Declarations Part of Res Gestae. — Heady v. Brown, 151 Ind. 75; West v. Beck, 95 Iowa 520 ; Bailey v. Barclay, 109 Ky. 636, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 776. But it has been held that though subsequent declarations of the father to a third person, to the effect that he had made advancements to a child, were not admissible, yet subsequent declarations were admissible to show that he had given the child nothing, since they were admissions against his interest. Waddell v. Waddell, 87 Mo. App. 216. 3. See Gunn v. Thruston, 130 Mo. 339; McDonald v. McDonald, 86 Mo. App. 122. 4. Contemporaneous Memoranda and Charges. — See Marshall v. Coleman, 187 111. 556; Mc- Donald v. McDonald, 86 Mo. App. 122. 7. Cowen v. Adams, 78 Fed. Rep. 536, 47 U. S. App. 676, affirmed 174 U. S. 800. 77§. 1. Direction in Will Controlling. — Mat- ter of Tompkins, 132 Cal. 173; Matter of 137 778-783 ADVA NCEMENTS. Vol. I. 778. 779. 780. Ho Reference in Will to Advancements Received. — See note 4. 4. Effect of Evidence of Indebtedness — Prima Facie Loan. — bee notes 5, o. Declarations of the Donor. — See note 2. A Statement Signed by the Donee. — See note 3. Gifts Intended and Accepted as Advancements* — See note 4. Release of All Claims Against Ancestor's Estate. — See note I. 5. Entries in Books — Insufficient to Show an Advancement. — See note 2. VII. Change of Gift to Advancement, and Vice Versa — Donor Bay Change Advancement to Gift Without Donee's Consent. — See note 8. Changing Debts to Advancements. — See note IO. 781. See note 1. , Advancement Irrevocable Without Donee's Consent. — See note 2. VIII. Rights and Remedies of Parties to Advancements — Release by Donee of Interest in Ancestor's Estate. — See notes 5> °. Donee Need Not Accept Advancement — Effect of Acceptance. — See note 7. Grandchildren Account for Advancements to Their Parent. — See note 8. 782. A Purchaser of an Heir's Interest. — See note I. Transfer in Fraud of Creditors. — See notes 4, 5. Moore, 61 N. J. Eq. 616 ; Miller v. Coudert, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 538; Keiser v. Keiser, 199 Pa. St. 77 ; M'Kibbin's Estate, 207 Pa. St. 1. 778. 4. Property Given as Advancement — No Reference Thereto in Will.— Vreeland v. Vree- land, 65 N. J. Eq. 668, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 778, affirmed (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 1 1 18; Justis v. Justis, (Md. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 23 ; Dare's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 58. See also Erwin v. Smith, 95 Ga. 699. 5, Sprague v. Moore, 130 Mich. 92, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 1 139, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 778 ; Matter of Cramer, (Surrogate Ct.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 494; Woess- ner v. Wells, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 247. See also Strickler's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 253. 6. Notes — Prima Facie Debt. — Lodge v. Fitch, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 338; Medill v. Fitzgerald, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 129; Garner v. Taylor, (Term. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 758. See also Handy's Estate, 167 Pa. St. 552. But see M'Kibbin's Estate, 207 Pa. St. 1. 779. 2. Declarations of Donor to Third Party. — Dare's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 58. 3. Statement Signed by Donee that Property Is Advancement. — Vreeland v. Vreeland, 65 N. J. Eq. 668. 4. Palmer v. Culbertson, 143 N. Y. 213. 780. 1. Cass v. Brown, 68 N. H. 85. The Release of His Whole Interest in the an- cestor's estate does not prevent the transac- tion from constituting an advancement. Gary v. Newton, 201 111. 170. 2. Entries in Parent's Account Books. — Jones v. Dawson, 68 111. App. 70 ; Dare's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 58. See also Young v. Young, 204 111. 430; Dobbins v. Humphreys, 171 Mo. 198. 8. Changing Advancement to Gift. — M'Kib- bin's Estate, 207 Pa. St. 1. See also Leggett v. Davison, 131 Mich. 77, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 233- 10. Matter of Tompkins, 132 Cal. 173; Baker v. Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 93 Md. 368; Rohrer's Estate, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 393. 781. 1. Lodge v. Fitch, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 338 ; Dare's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 58; Garner v. Taylor, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 758. Money Given as Advancement Cannot Be Made a Debt. — Boblett v. Barlow, (Ky. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 145. 2. Advancement Not Revocable Without Donee's Consent. — But it was held that a daughter might prefer payment to having an advance- ment stand and that a note given by her to that end was not without consideration. See Banning v. Purinton, 105 Iowa 642. 5. Releas- — DeVault v. DeVault, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 361 ; Coffman v. Coff- man, 41 W. Va. 8; Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609. See also Morris v. Carlin, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 281, 5 Pa. Dist. 714. 6. Where a note was indorsed to a grand- daughter, " being the share of my estate that I intend her to have," it was held not to be a release of her interest in her grandfather's estate, since it did not appear that the ances- tor had the same estate at his death as at the time the advancement was made. Binns v. Dazey, 147 Ind. 536, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 781. 7. Donee's Option to Accept Advancement, — The donee was permitted to return notes given as an advancement when it appeared she could not collect on them, and it was held a pro tanto satisfaction of the advancement. Nail v. Wright, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1120. 8. Frye v. Avritt, 68 S. W. Rep. 420, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 183; Miller v. Miller, 105 La. 257; Williams's Estate, 62 Mo. App. 339, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 516; Mickley's Estate, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 550; Coffman v. Coffman, 41 W. Va. 8; Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609. See also Lee v. Baird, 132 N. Car. 755. 782. 1. Purchaser of Heir's Interest Takes Subject to Advancements. — Finch v. Garrett, 102 Iowa 381. 4. When Transfer of Property in Fraud of Creditors. — Howard v. Duke, (Ky. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 69. Fraud a Question of Fact. — See Banning v. Purinton, 105 Iowa 642. 5, See Comer v. Shehee, 129 Ala. 588, 87 Am. St. Rep. 78. 138 Vol. I. ADVANCEMENTS. 783-785 783. A Power to a Wife to Divide Property. — See note 3. IX. Value of. Advancements — 1. How Computed — General Rale. — See note 6. 784. See note i. Value Fixed by Will. — See note 2. Rents and Profits. — See notes 3, 4. Property Destroyed or Made Valueless. — See note 6. 785. Life Insurance Policy. — See note 2. 2. Interest. — See notes 3, 5, 6. X. Application of the Doctrine of Advancements — intention — Agreement. — See note 9. 783. 3. See Taylor v. Jones, 97 Ky. 201. 6. Present Advancement — Value at Time Made. — Safe Deposit, etc., Co. v. Baker, 91 Md. 297, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 783 ; Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 782 [783]. See also Carmichael v. Lathrop, 112 Mich. 301. Regulated by Statute. — Where the statute provides that an advancement shall be taken at what it would " now " be worth, it was held to refer to the time of distribution and not to the time the advancement was made. Finch v. Garrett, 102 Iowa 381. The value of advancements should be esti- mated at what they would be worth at the death of the decedent if in the condition in which they were at the time the advancement was made. Eastwood v. Crane, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 481. 784. 1. Advancement in Future — Valued at Time of Possession. — Safe Deposit, etc., Co. v. Baker, 91 Md. 297, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 783 ; Matter of Lewis, 29 Ont. 609, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 784. In Cain v. Cain. 53 S. Car. 350, it is laid down as a general rule that " an estate in remainder after a life estate may be valued at one-half of the fee-simple value of the whole." 2. Will Fixing Value Controls. — In re Cum- mings, 120 Iowa 421. Where the will directs that the value re- cited in the deed of conveyance should be the value of an advancement, and in legal effect no consideration was therein expressed, it was held that a receipt naming its agreed value given by the donee at the time of the conveyance was to be considered in connection with the deed, and the will thereby determined the value. Ballinger v. Connable, 100 Iowa 600. 3. Rents and Profits Not Chargeable. — Ladd v. Stephens, 147 Mo. 319. 4. Improvements Made by the Donee. — East- wood v. Crane, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 481. 6. But where a will directed that slaves should be charged as advances and also con- tained a clause equalizing shares to distributees, it was held that since the slaves were emanci- pated they were no longer property, and the expressed desire of the testator to divide his property equally would be thwarted if the children had to account for such slaves as advancements. Ezell v. Head, 99 Ga. 560. 785. 2. Culberhouse v. Culberhouse, 68 Ark. 405. 3. Not Chargeable up to Donor's Death. — Baker v. Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 93 Md. 368 ; Sprague -v. Moore, 130 Mich. 92, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 1 1 30, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 785. See also Comer v. Shehee, 129 Ala. 588, 87 Am. St. Rep, 78. But see Slaughter v. Slaughter, 21 Ind. App. 641, wherein the writing evidencing the advance- ment provided that it should bear interest. Unless There Be a Clearly Manifest Intention, advancements do not bear interest. Stahl's Es- tate, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 402. 5. Chargeable for Time Between Death of Donor and the Distribution. — Sprague v. Moore, 130 Mich. 92, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 1130, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 785, note 5. Compare In re Dallmeyer, (1896) 1 Ch. 372. Interest is chargeable " from the testator's death down to tne time when the estate ought to have been, or should be deemed to have been, divided." Re Hargreaves, 86 L. T. N. S. 43. Where the one who claimed that there had been an unequal distribution waited twenty- two years before seeking to have the advance- ments settled, it was held that interest should be charged from the donor's death only for a period equal to " the probable law's delay," which was considered two years in this case. Wysong v. Rambo, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 56 S. W. Rep. 1053. Protection of a Life Interest justifies trustees in charging interest on annuities advanced to the sons of a testator. In re Finlayson, 5 British Columbia 517. 6. Hays v. Freshwater, 47 W. Va. 217, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d. ed.) 785. See also Rohrer's Estate, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 393. 9. Vreeland v. Vreeland, 65 N. J. Eq. 668, affirmed (N. J. 1904) 59'Atl. Rep. 1118. 139 ADVERSE POSSESSION. By G. W. Walsh. 789. I. Definition. — See notes i, 2. II. What Constitutes Adverse Possession ■ — a. Ouster — Claim of Title. -- See note 4. 790. b. Intent. — See notes 1, 2. 1. General Principles 789. 1. Wright v. Stice, 173 Ul. 57'. citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, 185 111. 70, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789; Swope v. Ward, 18s Mo. 316. quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 795 ; Whitaker v. Thayer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 364- 2. Kapiolani Estate v. Cleghorn, 14 Hawaii 346, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, 185 111. 70, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789; Glover v. Sage, 87 Minn. 526; Swope v. Ward, 185 Mo. 316, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 795 ; Wade v. Crouch, 14 Okla. 593, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789. 4. Must Be Ouster of True Owner and Claim of Bight. — Owsley v. Owsley, (Ky. 1903) ^^ S. W. Rep. 397 ; Nicolai v. Baltimore, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 627; Ivy v. Yancey, 129 Mo. 501 ; Swope v. Ward, 185 Mo. 316, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 795 ; Hindley 0. Metropolitan El. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 56; Altschul v. O'Neill, 35 Oregon 202 ; Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 189, quoting i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789; Blake u. Shriver, 27 Wash. 593; Port Townsend v. Lewis, 34 Wash. 413; Yesler v. Holmes, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 851. See also Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Lang- stedt, (C. C. A.) 136 Fed. Rep. 124. Possession Must Be Either under Claim of Right or Color of Title. — Atkinson - W. Rep. 396, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 634; Schafer v. Hauser, in Mich. 622, 66 Am. St. Rep. 403. See also Owsley, v. Owsley, (Ky. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 397. Parol Purchase. — A party may by parol pur- chase land, and he may enter on and openly Vol. 1. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 820-823 820. (i I) Husband and Wife — As Between Husband and Wife. — See note 2. 821. See note I. As to Third Parties. — See note 2. (12) Parent and Child. — See note 3. 822. c. Possession Must Be Actual — (1) General Rule.— See notes 1, 2. The Usual Tests of Entry and Possession. — See note 3. 823. Question of Aotual Adverse Possession Dependent on Circumstances. — See notes I, 2. When Actual Occupation, Cultivation, or Residence Unnecessary. — See note 3. and notoriously hold, claim, and occupy the same adverse to all the world, and such adverse holding and occupancy will ripen into a perfect title. Creech v. Abner, 106 Ky. 239. Possession under a parol purchase is adverse to the vendor. Gilbert v. Kelly, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 228. 820. 2. Stiff v. Cobb, 126 Ala. 387, 85 Am. St. Rep. 38, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 820; Skinner v. Hale, 76 Conn. 223, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 820; Hays v. Marsh, 123 Iowa 81 ; Hovorka v. Havlik, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 990 ; Reagle v. Reagle, 179 Pa. St. 89. If the husband in his lifetime has conveyed the land by a deed, in which his wife did not join, and she, after the first husband's death, marries the grantee, who lives with her upon the premises, the possession is the possession of the wife until her dower is assigned, and not the possession of the husband. Reed v. Hack- ney, 69 N. J. L. 27. 821. 1. Ross v. McCain, 145 Mo. 271 ; Fer- ring v. Fleischman, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 19. 2. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, 185 111. 70 ; Laraway v. Zenor, 100 Iowa 181 ; Brown- eller v. Wells, 109 Iowa 230. 3. Wright v. Stice, 173 111. 571, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 821 ; O'Boyle v. McHugh, 66 Minn. 391, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 821. See also Malone v. Malone, 88 Minn. 418. Where the Title Is in the Child. — Bozarth v. Watts, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 61 S. W. Rep. 108. Widow. — "The widow's possession and oc- cupancy of the homestead is, in its inception, perfectly friendly, and not adverse to the heirs of the deceased husband or their assigns, and will be regarded as continuing so until dis- claimed by hostile acts or declarations." Meddis v. Kenriey, 176 Mo. 200, 98 Am. St. Rep. 496. 822. 1. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Wooten, (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 681 ; Row v. Johnston, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 906; Helton v. Strubbe, 62 S. W. Rep. 12, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1919 ; Michel v. Stream, 48 La. Ann. 341 ; Proctor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., (Me. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 423 ; Johnston v. Albuquerque, (N. Mex. 1903) 72 Pac. Rep. 9; Fuller v. Elizabeth City, 118 N. Car. 25 ; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 262, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 822 ; Polk v. Beau- mont Pasture Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 242; Brooke v. Gibson, 27 Ont. 218; Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163. 2. Woolfolk v. Buckner, 67 Ark. 411 ; Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 597, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 822 ; Horbach v. Boyd, 64 Neb. 129; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. '905) 85 S. W. Rep. 262, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 822. 3. Tests of Entry and Possession. — Lennig u. White, (Va. 1894) 20 S. E. Rep. 831. 823. 1. Situation of the Lands — Uses to Which They May Be Applied. — Chamberlain v. Abadie, 48 La. Ann. 587 ; Adams v. Clapp, 87 Me. 316; Batchelder v. Robbins, 95 Me. 59; Whitaker v. Erie Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454; Butler v. Drake, 62 Minn. 229 ; Wheeler v. Gorman, 80 Minn. 462 ; Goltermann v. Schier- meyer, 125 Mo. 291; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228 ; Twohig v. Learner, 48 Neb. 247 ; Hamilton v. Fluornoy, 44 Oregon 97 ; Clithero v. Fenner, (Wis. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 1027; Illinois Steel Co. v. Jeka, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 399. 2. Mason v. Calumet Canal, etc., 'Co., 150 Ind. 699. See also Ortiz v. State, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 45. 3. When Actual Occupation, Cultivation, or Resi- dence Dispensed With. — Bynum.w. Hewlett, 137 Ala. 333; Johns v. McKibben, 156 111. 71; Sullivan v. Eddy, 154 111. 199; French v. Good- man, 167 111. 345 ; Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 539; Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 343; Dice v. Brown, 98 Iowa 297 ; Dickinson v. Bales, 62 Kan. 865, 61 Pac. Rep. 403 ; Merryman v. Cum- berland Paper Co., 98 Md. 223 ; Whitaker v. Erie Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454; McCaughn v. Young, (Miss. 1905) 37 So. Rep. 839; Se- quatchie Valley Coal, etc., Co. v. Coppinger, 95 Tenn. 528; Ortiz v. State, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 45; Lennig v. White, (Va. 1894) 20 S. E. Rep. 831. Acts of Ownership. — In Stein v. Green, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 292, the court said: "The established rule with regard to woodland seems to be that when the party is a mere trespasser, to acquire title by adverse possession he must either fence or indicate his boundaries by dis- tinct and visible marks upon the ground — that being the only way he can convey notice to the real owner on whom he intrudes, of the extent of his claim — and this must be accompanied by exclusive use and occupancy up to the bound- aries so made." See also Goodson v. Brothers, in Ala. 589; Dickinson v. Bales, 59 Kan. 224. Hauling sand at intervals of twenty years from an island which is submerged during half of each year is not sufficient, although that may be all the possession the claimant or owner is capable of making. Strange v. Spalding, (Ky. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 137- Land Covered by Water. — Adverse possession of land covered by water, which is the subject 149 824-827 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 824. 825. 826. 827. Wild Lands. — See note I. Mere Naked Possession Without Color of Title. — See note 3. Entry under Conveyance from One Having Color of Title. — See note 4. Legal Owner in Possession of Part of the Tract. — See note. 2. (2) Evidence Of — (a) By Occupation. — See note 4. An Entry to Survey. — See note I . When Question for Jury. — See note I . of private ownership, may be acquired by any means which actually and notoriously exclude the true owner therefrom, effectually disseizing him thereof. Other means than physical ex- clusion by residence thereon or by inclosing the same will accomplish it. Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot, 109 Wis. 418, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905. 824. 1. Mason v. Calumet Canal, etc., Co., 150 Ind. 699; Vincent v. Blanton, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 703 ; Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 98 Me. 268, 99 Am. St. Rep. 397. Swamp Land. — • " The occasional getting boards and shingles in this swamp were no more than trespasses and did not amount to possession." Rowe v. -Cape Fear Lumber Co., 128 N. Car. 301, modified 129 N. Car. 97. See also Bump v. Butler County, 93 Fed. Rep. 290 ; Travers v. McElvain, 200 111. 377 ; White v. Harris, 206 111. 584; Chabert v. Russell, 109 Mich. 571. Cutting Grass. — The mere fact that a tres- passer cuts natural hay on and lets his cattle run over and feed upon wild and uninclosed land, adjoining land actually occupied by him, is not sufficient to constitute adverse possession. Sage v. Morosick, 69 Minn. 167. Cutting Timber — Paying Taxes, — There can be no adverse possession of wild lands as against a superior title unless such possession is actual, exclusive, visible, and notorious. A mere claim by the occasional cutting of timber, the preven- tion of trespassers, the payment of taxes, and the assertion of title, is not sufficient. Wilson v. Braden, (W. Va. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. ,409. See also Fleming v. Katahdin Pulp, etc., Co., 93 Me. no; McKinnon v. Meston, 104 Mich. 642. Accretions, — In Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228, the court said : " One who acquires title to the mainland by ten years' adverse posses- sion acquiresi title to river deposits made and making on his front before and during the period in which his possessory title was form- ing." And see the title Accretion. Adverse Possession to Middle of Stream. — One who holds to the shore of a stream by adverse possession " is confined to his actual occupancy on the shore unless by notorious acts of owner- ship, in so far as he may be able to exercise them, he furnishes evidence of his intention to claim and hold to the middle of the stream." Stanberry v. Mallory, 101 Ky. 49. 3, Naked Possession Without Color of Title — How Far Adverse. — Sage v. Larson, 69 Minn. 122; Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291 ; Pennsylvania R. Co, v. Breckenridge, 60 N. J. L. 583; Ljeberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 258, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 824; Funk v. Anderson, 22 Utah 238. 4. Zundel v. Baldwin, 114 Ala. 328; Doe v. Edmondson, 127 Ala. 445 ; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 258, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 824; Parkers- burg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. 825. 2. Wilkins v. Pensacola City Co., 36 Fla. 36 ; Strong v. Powell, 92 Ga. 59 1 ; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228 ; Peden v. Crenshaw, (Tex. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 362. 4. Wiggins v. Kirby, 106 Ala. 262; Elyton Land Co. v. Denny, 108 Ala. 553; Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCreary, 137 Ala. 278; Stal- ford v. Goldring, 197 111. 156; Stern v. Foun- tain, 112 Iowa 96; Price v. Beall, (Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 918; Barr v. Potter, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 478 ; Archibald v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574; College Point Sav. Bank v. Vollmer, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 619; Fuller v. Jackson, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 274 ; Hearn v. Jones, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 64 S. W. Rep. 344 ; Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163. Occasional Acts of Ownership. — Freedman v. Oppenheim, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 622. Cutting Timber, etc., Not Sufficient. — Soape v. Doss, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 649. See also Patter- son v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., (Ky. 1903) 71 S. W. Rep. 930; Combs v. Combs, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 8 ; Call v. Cozart, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 312. Mining Lands. — Finnegan v. Pennsylvania Trust Co., 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 68. Presumption as to Quantity of Land Occupied. — The actual -occupancy of a small portion of an entire tract of land, which entire tract has been marked by locating the corners and plowing around the outside lines, must be deemed to be an occupation of the entire tract so marked, for the purpose of starting and continuing the running of the statute of limitations. Pratt v. Ard, 63 Kan. 182. Use and Occupation Establish the Fact of Ad- verse Possession. — Off v. Heinrichs, (Wis. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 904. 826. 1. Mead v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 112 Iowa 291. 827. 1. Alabama. — Doe v. Adams, 121 Ala. 664. Delaware. — Doe v. Pepper, 2 Marv. (Del.) 221. Georgia. — Flannery v. Hightower, 97 Ga. 592- Illinois. — Johns v. McKibben, 156 111. 71. Indian Territory. — Robinson v. Nail, 2 In- dian Ter. 509. Minnesota. — Butler v. Drake, 62 Minn. 229. Nebraska. — Fink v. Dawson, 52 Neb. 647. New York. — Race v. Stewart, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 598 ; Stillwell v. Boyer, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 424, affirmed without opinion 165 N. Y. 621 ; O'Donohue v. Cronin, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 379, Texas. — McCarty v. Johnson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 184; Beaumont Pasture Co. v. Polk, (Tex. Ciy. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 614; Williams!'. 150 Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 827-831 827. See note 4. 828. 829. 830. 831. Residence May Be by Tenant or Vendee under Contract of Purchase. — See note 2. (b) By Cultivation — Occasional Acts of. Working and Improving Insufficient. — Heaping Not Cultivation. — See note 5. Cutting Timber — Firewood. — See note 7. See note 1. Merely Grazing Cattle. — See note 2. (c) By Inclosure. — See note I. Inclosure Without Residence. — See note 2. By Statute in Some States. ■ — See note 3. Sufficiency of Inclosure. — See notes 4, 5. The Fence Should Be a Complete Inclosure. — See note I. Temporary Breaches. — See note 2. (d) By Payment of Taxes. — See notes I, 2. Galveston, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 551 ; Haigler v. Pope, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 1039. Wisconsin. — Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot, 109 Wis. 418, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905 ; Illinois Steel Co. v. Jeka, 119 Wis. 122. 827. 2. Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52; Jacob Tome Institute v. Crothers, 87 Md. 569 ; Heine- mann v. Bennett, 144 Mo. 113; McNeill v. Ful- ler, 121 N. Car. 209; Cochran v. Linville Iiflp. Co., 127 N. Car. 386; Bateman v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 224; Col- lier v. Couts, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 485- 4. Nicholson v. Aronson, 58 Kan. 814, 48 Pac. Rep. 917. 5. See Voight v. Meyer, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 350. 7. Boynton v. Ashabranner, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 566 ; A. W. Stevens Lumber Co. v. Hughes, (Miss. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 769; Golter- mahn o. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291 ; Robinson v. Claggett, 149 Mo. 153 ; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Oregon 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540. In Carter v. Hornback, 139 Mo. 238, the court said : " Cutting and hauling firewood, saw tim- ber, making and hauling fence rails from the land, and clearing up same " do not constitute adverse possession. See also Driver v. Martin, 68 Ark. 551. 828. 1. Boynton v. Ashabranner, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 566; Hilton v. Singletary, 107 Ga. 821 ; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Wooten, (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 681; Nye v. Alfter, 127 Mo. 529 ; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 262, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 828 [829] ; Broom v. Fearson, (Tex. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 790, rehearing denied (Tex. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 733. Illustration — Timber Land. — In Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. Car. 15, the court said: "The acts of dominion consisted of cutting board timber some time during a particular year on a piece of woodland ; but there was no evidence to show that they were continuous, or, if they were, that the land, though while covered with timber it was not susceptible to other use, might not have been cleared and cultivated, re- gardless of its capacity for profitable produc- tion." 2. Bergere v. U. S., 168 U. S. 66; McCloskey v. Hayden, 169 111. 297 ; Haase v. Kelley, 8 Kan. App. 651, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) S28 ; Knight v. Denman, 64 Neb. 814; Calloway v. Sanford, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 35 S. W. Rep. 776; Vineyard v. Brundrett, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 147 J Zapeda v. Hoffman, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 312. Compare Pierson v. McClintock, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 706. 829. 1, Actual Fencing and Inclosing Not Necessary Unless Required by Statute. — Holtz* man v. Douglas, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397 ; John, son v. Thomas, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 141 , O'Flaherty v. Mann, 196 111. 304; Dice v. Brown, 98 Iowa 297 ; Dickinson v. Bales, $1 Kan. 224; Adams v. Clapp, 87 Me. 316; Ston v. James, 84 Md. 2S2 ; Young v. Grieb, (Minn 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 131 ; Robinson v. Claggett 149 Mo. 153; Cowan v. Hatcher, (Tenn. Ch 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 691, citing 1 Am. and Eng Encyc. of Law (2d ed.; 829 ; Illinois Steci Co. v. Bilot, 109 Wis. 430, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905, denying rehearing 109 Wis. 424 ; Batz v. Woer- pel, 113 Wis. 442. See also McCook v. Craw- ford, 114 Ga. 337; Cowan v. Hatcher, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 689. Town , Lots, — See Pendo v. Beakey, 15 S. Dak. 344. 2. Perry v. Lawson, 112 Ala. 480; Hamilton. v. Flournoy, 44 Oregon 97; Ambrose v. Hunt- ington, 34 Oregon 484. 3. See Funk v. Anderson, 22 Utah 238. 4. Fence Must Be Substantial. — Helton v . Strubbe, 62 S. W. Rep. 12, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1919; Johnston v. Albuquerque, (N. Mex. 1903) 72 Pac. Rep. 9 ; Freedman v. Bonner, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 47; Sharrock v. Ritter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. i5<5- The Usual Test is whether an inclosure is sufficient to turn cattle. Jones v. Hodges, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 869. 5. Fencing on Margin of River. — Sanders v. Riedinger, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 289, affirmed 164 N. Y. 564. 8:10. 1. Ely v. Brown, 183 III. 575. But see Brown v. Doherty, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 190. 2. Baldwin v. Durfee, .116 Cal. 625 ; Jones v. Hodges, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 869; Hillman v. White, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. rn ; Shar- rock v. Ritter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 156 ; Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. 831. 1. Effect of Payment of Taxes.— Holtz- man v. Douglas, 168 U. S. 278; Chastang V: Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799; Boyn- I5l 831-833 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 831. Necessity of Payment of Taxes. — See note 5. 832. d. Possession Must Be Open and Notorious ■ See note 1. 833. Actual Notice Unnecessary.'— See note I. The Question of Notoriety Does Not Arise. — See note 2. Bule Stated. — ton v. Ashabranner, (Ar,k. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 566; Dickinson v. Bales, 59 Kan. 224; Chamber- lain v. Abadie, 48 La. Ann. 587; Whitman v. Shaw, 166 Mass. 451; Whitaker v. Erie Shoot- ing Club, 102 Mich. 454; Miller v. Davis, 106 Mich. 300; Young v. Grieb, (Minn. 1905) i°4 N. W. Rep. 131; Sweringen v. St. Louis, 151 Mo. 348; Consolidated Ice Co. v . New York, 166 N. Y. 92; Mission of Immaculate Virgin, etc. v. Cronin, 143 N. Y. 524; Fuller v. Eliza- beth City, 118 N. Car. 25; Truman v. Raybuck, 207 Pa. St. 357 ; Fuller v. Jackson, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 274; Hilburn v. Harris, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 923 ; Texas Tram, etc., Co. v. Gwin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 892, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 721. " Pasturing the land and the payment of taxes upon it did not constitute adverse possession." McVey V. Carr, 159 Mo. 648. " Unimproved and Uninclosed Land shall be deemed and held to be in the possession of the person who pays taxes thereon if he have color- of title thereto, but no person shall be entitled to invoke the benefit of this act unless he and those under whom he claims shall have paid such taxes for at least seven years in succes- sion and not less than three of such payments, must be made subsequent to the passage of this act." Acts Ark. 1899, p. 117, quoted in Tow- son v. Denson, (Ark. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 661. 831. 2. Payment of Taxes in Connection with Other Circumstances. — Chastang v. Chas- tang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799; Merwin v. Morris, 71 Conn. 555 ; Holtzman v. Douglas, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397 ; Wilbur v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 116 Iowa 65; Carter v. Clark, 92 Me. 225. See Archibald v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574. In Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260, the court said : " The mere payment of taxes, and an occasional trip over the land by himself or his agent in looking after it, did not, without more, constitute possession." 5. California. — Tuffree v. Polhemus, 108 Cal. 670; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Whitaker, 109 Cal. 268; Eberhardt v. Coyne, 114 Cal. 283; Carpenter v. Lewis, 119 Cal. 18; Allen v. Mc- Kay, 120 Cal. 332; McDonald v. McCoy, 121 Cal. 55;' Williams v. Gross, 129 Cal." xviii, 61 Pac. Rep. 934 ; Standard Quicksilver Co. v. Habishaw, 132 Cal. 115; Nathan v. Dierssen, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 739. If the title was complete before the statute took effect the stat- ute does not affect the title. Lucas v. Provines, 130 Cal. 270. Idaho. — Code Civ. Pro. of Idaho made it necessary, in order to establish adverse pos- session, to prove the payment of taxes. Brose v. Boise City R., etc., Co., 5 Idaho 694. See also Urguide v. Flanagan, 7 Idaho 163. Illinois. — Osburn v. Searles, 156 111. 88; Converse v. Dunn, 166 111. 25 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 167 111. 489; Bell v. Neiderer, 169 111. 54; Wright v. Stice, 173 111. 571; Neiderer v. Bell, 174 III. 325 ; Loewenthal v. Elkins, 175 111. 553; Renner v. Kannally, 96 111. App. 392, affirmed 193 111. 212. North Dakota. — See Power v. Kitching, 10 N. Dak. 254, 88 Am. St. Rep. 691. South Dakota. — Bennett v. Moore, (S. Dak.' '1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 855. Texas. — Wall v. Club Land, etc., Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905J 88 S. W. Rep. 534. Utah. — See Funk v. Anderson, 22 Utah 238 ; Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186. §32. 1. United States. — National Water- works Co. u. Kansas City, 78 Fed. Rep. 428. Alabama. — Croft v. Doe, 125 Ala. 391; Bynum v. Hewlett, 137 Ala. 333. Arkansas. — Boynton v. Ashabranner, (Ark. 1905) S8 S. W. Rep. 566. Connecticut. — Carney v. Hennessey, 74 Conn. 107, 92 Am. St. Rep. 199. Georgia. — McCook v. Crawford, 114 Ga. 337- Illinois. — Eckert v. Weilmuenster, 103 III. App. 490. Kentucky. — Helton v. Strubbe, 62 S. W. Rep. 12, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1919 ; Owsley v. Owsley, (Ky. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 397. Maine. — Adams v. Clapp, 87 Met 316; Car- ter v. Clark, 92 Me. 225. Maryland. — Hackett v. Webster, 97 Md. 404. Michigan. — Chabert v. Russell, 109 Mich. 571 ; Red Jacket v. Pinton, 126 Mich. 194. Missouri. — Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291; Herbst v. Merrifield, 133 Mo. 267; Robinson v. Claggett, 149 Mo. 153. North Carolina. — Brinkley v. Smith, 131 N. Car. 130. Vermont. — Jangraw v. Mee, 75 Vt. 211, 98 Am. St. Rep. 816.. Washington. — Flint v. Long, 12 Wash. 342; Blake v. Shriver, 27 Wash. 593 ; Wilcox v. Smith, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 803. Wisconsin. — Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426. Canada. — Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163. In Goodson v. Brothers, 111 Ala. 589, the court said : " A possession to be adverse, need not be so open, continuous, and notorious as necessarily to be seen and known by the owner if he should casually go upon the land." A Possession Known to the True Owner - and which is adverse is equivalent to a possession which is open and notorious and adverse. Mc- Caughn v. Young, (Miss. 1905) 37 So. Rep. 839. 833. 1. Carney v. Hennessey, 74 Conn. 107, 92 Am. St. Rep. 199; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Nugent, 152 111. 119; Miller v. Rosen-. berger, 144 Mo. 292 ; Bowers v. Ledgerwood, 25 Wash. 14. Possession of land is notice to the world of the possessor's rights therein. Draper v. Taylor, 58 Neb. 787. 2. When Notoriety Unimportant. — McCaughn v. Young, (Miss. 1905) 37 So. Rep. 839; Mc- Auliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 141. 152 Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 834-836 834. Possession under Deed Duly Beoorded — Constructive Notice. — See note I. In Constructive Notice the Element of Quantity. — : See note 2. When Possession Is Originally Taken and Held under the True Owner. — See note 3. e. Possession Must Be Exclusive. — See note 4. 835. /. Possession Must Be Continuous — (1) General Rule. — See notes 1, 2. Continuity in Point of Locality. — See note 3. 83$. (2) Interruption of Possession — (a) Re-entry and Intrusion — By the True Owner. — See note I. Nature of Re-entry Required. — See note 2. 834. 1. Hill v. Harris, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 408. , 2. Extending an Inclosure Over the Line of Another. — McAdams v. Moody, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 628. 3. Transferee of Licensee. — While the trans- fer of possession by a mere licensee to a third person terminates the license, and gives the licensor the right, if he so elects, to treat the transferee as a trespasser, yet the possession of such transferee is not adverse, so as to set the statute of limitations in motion, unless such adverse holding is declared, and brought to the knowledge of the licensor. Cameron v. Chi- cago, etc., R. Co., 60 Minn. 100. 4. Possession Must Be Exclusive. — Littledale v. Liverpool College, (1900) 1 Ch. 19, 81 L. T. N. S. 567 ; Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163; Hatch v. Heim, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 436 ; Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Langstedt, (C. C. A.) 136 Fed. Rep. 124; Pennington -v. Lewis, 4 Penn. ( Del.) 447 ; Burch v. Burch, 96 Ga. 133; McCook v. Crawford, 114 Ga. 337; Eckert v. Weilmuenster, 103 111. App. 490; Travers v. McElvain, 181 111. 382 ; Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 834; Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 848; Altschul v. O'Neill, 35 Oregon 221, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 834; Hamilton v. Flournoy, 44 Oregon 97 ; Wilcox v. Smith, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 803. Grazing the Owner's Cattle on the land will prevent the possession from being exclusive. Rennie v. Frame, 29 Ont. 586. Joint Occupancy. — If two persons are present, claiming the title, the possession is his who has the title. Spencer Christian Church v. Thomas, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 750. Where the holder of a junior title makes entry upon, land in the actual or constructive possession of the owner of an older title, he ac- quires possession, only to the extent of his actual inclosure. Cuyler v. Bush, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 579- 835. 1. Continuity of Possession — Alabama. — Davidson v. Alabama Iron, etc., Co., 109 Ala. 383 ; Carter v. Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563. Arkansas. — Rowland v. Wadly, 71 Ark. 273; Boynton v. Ashabranner, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 566. California. — Nathan v. Dierssen, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 739. District of Columbia. — Reid v. Anderson, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 30. Georgia. — Clark v. White, 120 Ga. 9=7. Illinois. — Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 596, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 835- 837; Downing v. Mayes, 153 111. 330, 46 Am. St. Rep. 896 ; Burns v. Edwards, 163 111. 494 ; Reuter v. Stuckart, 181 111. 529; Blackaby v. • Blackaby, 185 111. 94. Indiana. — Fatic v. Myer, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 142. Kentucky. — Barr v. Potter, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 478. Michigan. — Beecher v. Ferris, 117 Mich. 108. Minnesota. — St. Paul v. Chicago; etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 330; Olson v. Burk, (Minn. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 335. Missouri. — Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291 ; Three States Lumber Co. v. Rogers, 145 Mo. 445; Brown v. Hartford, 173 Mo. 183. North Carolina. — Brinkley v. Smith, 131 N. Car. 130; Monk v. Wilmington, (N. Car. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 345. Tennessee. — Free v. Fine, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 384. Texas. — Settegast v. O'Donnell, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 56 ; Collier v. Couts, 92 Tex. 234 ; Wille v. Ellis, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 462 ; Allen v. Courtney, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 86 ; Lawless 0. Wright, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1039. West Virginia. — Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. Wisconsin. — Allis v. Field, 89 Wis. 327. Canada. — Handley v. Archibald, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 130 ; Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163. 2. Reid v. Anderson, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 30. 3. Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 835. 836. 1. Be-entry by True Owner. — Schloss- nagle v. Kolb, 97 Md. 285 ; Day v. Philbrook, 89 Me. 462; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. Forcible Entry. — Hornsby v. Davis, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 36 S. W. Rep. 159. Joint Possession. — Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799. Entry During Absence of Claimant. — The con- tinuity is broken by the entry of the owner even though the adverse claimant was absent. Brinkerhoff v. Mooney, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 420. 2. Batchelder v. Robbins, 93 Me. 579, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 836, affirmed 95 Me. 59 \ Illinois Steel Co. v. Bud- zisz, 115 Wis. 68; Brock v. Benness, 29 Ont. 468. Entry Must Bear Upon Its Face the Intention to Resume Possession. — Murphy v. Com., 187 Mass. 361. 153 837-840 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 837. 838. 839. 84©. Any Interruption, for However Short a Time. — See note 5. Question for Jury. — See note 6. Entry by Another AdverBe Claimant. — See note 7- Mere Intrusion Unknown to the Possessor. — See note 8. Interruption During Suspension of Statute. — See note 9. (b) Acknowledgment of Superior Title — Bule Stated. — See note 2. Presumption from Agreement to Arbitrate or Suspend Suit. — See note 3. Possession Part of Period in Subordination to True Owner. — See note I. Purchase of Outstanding Claims. — See notes 2, 3. The Purchase of a Tax Title. — See note I. But the Offer to Purchase or Rent the Property. — See note 2. (c) Suit by True Owner — Eecovery. — See note 3. 837. 5. 185 111. 70; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. A break of a single day is sufficient to de- stroy the operation of the statute. Free v. Fine, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 384. 6. Hopkins v. Deering, 71 N. H. 353 ; Fortier v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 24; Handley v. Barrett, 176 Pa. St. 246. 7. Occupying the land by permission of the adverse holder is not an interruption of the possession of the person who claims by adverse possession. Jacob Tome Institute v. Crothers, 87 Md. 569. 8. Cowan v. Hatcher, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 691, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 837. See also Prouty v. Tilden, 164 111. 163. Entry by Trespassers or Squatters. — Where little patches of ground were used for gardens by trespassers or squatters, it did not work an interruption of plaintiff's adverse possession. Batchelder v. Robbins, 95 Me. 59. 9. Collier v. Couts, 92 Tex. 234, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 485. Pendente Lite. — An entry made pendente lite does not interrupt the possession. Middlesboro Waterworks v. Neal, 105 Ky. 586. 838. 2. Acknowledgment of Superior Title. — Cleveland v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 113; McMahill v. Torrence, 163 111. 277; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Keegan, 185 111. 70; Litchfield v. Sewell, 97 Iowa 247 ; Lake City v. Fulkerson, 122 Iowa 569 ; Pratt v. Ard, 63 Kan. 182 ; Olson v. Burk, (Minn. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 335; Oldig v. Fisk, 53 Neb. 162, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 838; Hindley v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 56; Hindley v. Man- hattan R. Co., 103 N. Y. App. Div. 504, affirming Hindley v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc: (N. Y.) 56 ; Barrell v. Title Guarantee, etc., Co., 27 Oregon 77 ; Deppen v. Bpgar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434 ; Truman v, Ray- buck, 207 Pa. St. 357 ; Free v. Fine, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 384; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Speights, 94 Tex. 350 ; Weisman v. Thomson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 728; Whitaker v. Thayer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 364 ; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. But see McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69. Disclaimer of Part. — See O'Flaherty v. Mann, 196 Hl.304; Rabbermannw. Carroll, 207 111. 253. Agreement Pending Suit. — An attempt to ob- tain defendant's consent to the use of the houses by the tenants pending a. settlement of the suit, under a proviso that whatever arrange- ment was then made was not to impair the rights of either party did not amount to an ac- knowledgment of defendant's title. Slater v. Reed, 37 Oregon 274. 3. Agreement to Have Land Resurveyed. — An agreement between adjacent landowners to have the existing boundary line resurveyed is not such an admission of its incorrectness as will interrupt a claim of adverse possession. Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735. Negotiating for a Compromise. — The running of the statute will not be suspended by the parties in interest entering into negotiations for a compromise. Anderson v. Canter, 10 Kan. App. 167. 839. 1. St. Paul v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 330. 2. Elder v. McClaskey, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 529 ; Richardson v. Watts, 94 Me. 476 ; Oldig v. Fisk, 53 Neb. 156; West v. Edwards, 41 Oregon 609; Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123; Clithero v. Fenner, (Wis. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 1027. 3. Webb v. Thiele, 56 Neb. 752. 840. 1. Purchase of Outstanding Tax Title Not an Admission of Another's Right. — Zweibel v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 597. A Sale of Land for Taxes while adversely oc- cupied by a tenant is not such an interruption as will prevent the acquisition of a title by ad- verse possession. Harrison v. Dolan, 172 Mass. 395. 2. McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 6g ; Barrell v. Title Guarantee, etc., Co., 27 Oregon 77- Acceptance of a Lease or Contract for the Fur- chase of the Land from the owner is an acknowl- edgment of the title of such owner. Olson v. Burk, (Minn. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 335. 3. Breon v. Robrecht, 118 Cal. 469, 473. A Decree finding that the defendant had no interest in the land interrupts the possession. Oberein u. Wells, 163 111. 101. One Remaining in Possession After Adverse De- cree. — Oberein v. Wells, 163 111. 109. But sec Thomson v. Weisman, (Tex. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 503, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 728. Suit by One of Several Co-tenants. — Cobb u. Robertson, (Tex. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 746. A Suit in Ejectment by One Tenant in Common in the joint names of himself and a cotenant interrupts the adverse possession of the coten- ant when judgment is entered in such suit. 154 Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 840-842 840. 841. 842. Suit Unsuccessful or Dismissed. — See note 6. (d) Abandonment. — See note I. But the Mere Fact that the Premises Are Vacant at Times. — See note 2. The Mere Lapse of Time. — See note 3. When the Statutory Bar Is Complete. — See note 2. (3) Tacking — Kuie stated. — See note 4. Handley v. Archibald, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 130, affirming Archibald v. Handley, 32 Nova Scotia I.- §40. 6. Elder v. McClaskey, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 529 ; Bradford v. Wilson, 140 Ala. 633 ; Duffy v. Duffy, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 25 ; Rook v. Greenewald, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 641. 841. 1. Driver v. Martin, 68 Ark. 551; Bloraberg v. Montgomery, 69 Minn. 149 ; Linen v. Maxwell, 67 N. H. 370 ; Parkersburg Indus- trial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470 ; Handley v. Archibald, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 130. See also Halbert v. Maysville, etc., R. Co., 98 Ky. 661. 2. Perry v. Lawson, 112 Ala 484, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 841 ; Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499 ; Richards v. Haskins, (Neb. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 151 ; First Presb. Soc. v. Bass, 68 N. H. 333 ; Hornsby v. Davis, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 36 S. W. Rep. 159; Cowan v. Hatcher, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 689. If the Party Removing Has Color of Title, and by his acts manifests an intention still to claim and use it the possession is not lost. Mc- Caughn v. Young, (Miss. 1905) 37 So. Rep. 839. 3. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 30 Ind. App. 650. 842. 2. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co. v. Linn, 123 Ala. 112, 82 Am. St. Rep. 108; Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470 ; Sum- merfield v. White, 54 W. Va. 311. But a person claiming land by adverse pos- session for the statutory period cannot suffer another who is connected with the record title to go into possession, thereafter sell the prop- erty to an innocent purchaser, and then come in and establish title by adverse possession as against such purchaser. Adams v. Carpenter, (Mo. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 445. 4. Tacking — General Rule — Alabama. — Car- ter v. Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563 ; Robinson v. Allison, 124 Ala. 325. Arkansas. — ■ Cox v. Dougherty, 62 Ark. 629, 36 S. W. Rep. 184; Robinson v. Nordman, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 592. District of Columbia. — Reid v. Anderson, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 30. Hawaii. — See Kapiolani Estate v. Cleghorn, 14 Hawaii 330. Illinois. — Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 597, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 842; Lourance v. Goodwin, 170 111. 390; Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52- Louisiana. — Dowdell v. Orphans' Home Soc, (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 16. Maryland. — ■ Wickes v. Wickes, 98 Md. 307. Massachusetts. — Frost v. Courtis, 172 Mass. 401. Minnesota. — Hall u. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 76 Minn. 401. Nebraska. — Pohlman v. Evangelical Lu- theran Trinity Church, 60 Neb. 364 ; Zweibel v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 597; Mon- tague v. Marunda, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 653- New Jersey. — Davock v. Nealon, 58 N. J. L. 21. North Carolina. — Alexander v. Gibbon, 118 N. Car. 796, 54 Am. St. Rep. 757. O hio. — Morehouse v. Burgot, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 163, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 174. Oregon. — Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Oregon 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540. Pennsylvania. — Covert v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 204 Pa. St. 341. South Carolina. — Sutton v. Clark, 59 S. Car. 440, 82 Am. St. Rep. 848; Love v. Turner, (S. Car. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. iot. Texas. — O'Connor v. Dykes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 920; Bateman v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 224; Houston v. Finnigan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 470. Wisconsin. — Allis v. Field, 89 Wis. 327 ; Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403. Canada. — Ker v. Little, 25 Ont. App. 387. Where property sold under execution is after- wards sold for taxes in the name of the pur- chaser at the execution sale, the original owner may acquire the title of the tax purchaser and tack his possession to that of the tax pur- chaser. Gauthier v. Cason, 107 La. 52. Husband and Wife — Widow. — East Tennes- see Iron, etc., Co. v. Walton, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 35 S. W. Rep. 459, to the same effect as Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 241, stated in the original note. Widow and Heirs. — Atwell v. Shook, 133 N. Car. 387. The Possession of the Receiver pending the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be tacked to the possession of the person who bought the property under the sale made by the receiver. Wilkinson v. Lehman-Durr Co., 136 Ala. 463. Tenants in Common. — The successive posses- sions of tenants in common may be connected when the parties hold under color of title and not as mere trespassers without color of title. Woodruff v. Roysden, 105 Tenn. 491, 80 Am. St. Rep. 905. In North Carolina, thirty years' adverse posses- sion will bar the state, and this need not be continuous nor need there be any connection between the tenants. Walden u. Ray, 121 N. Car. 237. Grantor and Grantee. — The possession of a grantee cannot be tacked to that of his grantor where no color of title is shown in the grantor. Morrison v. Craven, 120 N. Car. 327. See also Burch v. Burch, 96 Ga. 133; J. B. Streeter Jr. Co. v. Fredrickson, n N. Dak. 300. To tack the possession of a grantee to that of a grantor it must be against some one to whom the grantor held adversely. Sluyter v. Sclivnb (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 757. Absence of Privity Between Some of the Succes- 155 844-847 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 844. Where There Is No Privity. — See note I. How the Requisite Privity May Arise. — See note 2. 845. See note i. Continuity Shown by Parole. — See note 2. Cannot Rely upon Grantor's Possession of Other Lands. — • See note 4. 846. III. Color of Title — 1. Definition. — See notes 1, 2. 847.' 3. Not Essential to Adverse Possession. — See notes 1, 3. sive Disseizors has been held not to prevent the barring of the real owner's title. Handley v. Archibald, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 130. 844. 1. Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 597, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 843 [844]; Wilson v. Purl, 133 Mo. 367; Davock v. Nealon, 58 N. J. L. 21 ; Johnston v. Case, 131 N. Car. 491. The Possession of Mere Trespassers cannot be tacked to the possession of one claiming to hold by adverse possession. Haggart v. Ranney, (Ark. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 703. 2. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Organ, 67 Ark. 84; Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52; Hall . Allen, 178 111. 330. 2. La Crosse v. Cameron, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 264 ; Dorian v. Westervitch, 140 Ala. 283. A deed by a husband in which his wife did not join was held to give color of title. Avera ■0. Williams, 81 Miss. 714. 4. Insufficient Subscribing Witnesses to Will. — Love v. Turner, (S. Car. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 101. 8, Standard Quicksilver Co. v. Habishaw, 132 Cal. 115; Lightcap v. Bradley, 186 111. 510; Converse v. Calumet River R. Co., 195 111. 204; Skelly v. Warren, 17 S. Dak. 25. 858. 1. Nelson v. Cooper, (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 919 ; Burns v. Edwards, 163 111. 494. 4. Wilson v. Johnson, 145 Ind. 40, citing 1 Am, and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 858, 859. 6. Laughlin v. Denver, 24 Colo. 255 ; Wil- liamson v. Tison, 99 Ga. 791 ; Zilch v. Young, 184 111. 333; Williams v. Thomas, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 472- 7. Hanna v. Palmer, 194 111. 41 ; Barker v. Southern R. Co., 125 N. Car. 596, 74 Am. St. Rep. 658 ; Newton v. Alexander, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 44 S. W. Rep. 416; Simpson v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 1076; Bruce v. Richardson, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 615. " A deed is color of title only as to the land actually described in it." Archer v. Beihl, (C. C. A. 1905) 136 Fed. Rep. 113. 859. 1. Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260. 2. Archer v. Beihl, (C. C. A. 1905) 136 Fed. Rep. 113; Tumlin v. Perry, 108 Ga. 520; Lut- trell v. Whitehead, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 691; Pitts v. Whitehead, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 693; Priester v. Melton, (Ga. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 330 ; Sharp v. Shenandoah Furnace Co., 100 Va. 27; Flint v. Long, 12 Wash. 342. In Allmendinger v. McHie, 189 111. 308, the court said : " It is essential to color of title that the premises shall be described with the same degree of certainty as is required in deeds relied upon as absolute conveyances." 3. Dorian v. Westervitch, 140 Ala. 283 ; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 258; Heinselman v. Hunsicker, 103 Wis. 12. 5. White v. Stokes, 67 Ark. 188, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 859; Burns v, Edwards, 163 111. 494; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gulf of Mexico Land, etc., Co., 82 Miss. 188, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 857-859; McNeeley v. South Penn Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 631, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 859. Rule in Texas. — Wille v. Ellis, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 462. 860. 1. Burns v. Edwards, 163 111. 494; Harrell v. Enterprise Sav. Bank, 183 111. 538. But see Winters v. Hainer, 107 Tenn. 337 ; Philadelphia Mortg., etc., Co. v. Palmer, 32 Wash. 455. 4. Dorian v. Westervitch, 140 Ala. 283 ; Roberson v. Downing Co., 120 Ga. 841, 102 Am. St. Rep. 128, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law- (2d ed.) 860 ; Utley v. Wil- mington, etc., R. Co., 119 N. Car. 720. See also Plaster v. Grabeel, 160 Mo. 669. Registration Necessary in Some Jurisdictions. — — ■ Nye v. Alfter, 127 Mo. 529; Austin v. Staten, 126 N. Car. 783 ; Lindsay v. Beaman, 128 N. Car. 189; Snider v. Brown, (Tenn. Ch. i8g8) 48 S. W. Rep. 377; Wille v. Ellis, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 462 ; Doom v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1086; Watts v. Bruce, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 347; McLavy v. Jones, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 354; Rice v. Willis, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 626 (construing Texas stat- ute). Where a deed conveys several distinct tracts of land lying contiguous to each other, but not covered by one general description which would embrace them all, and the grantee enters into the possession of one of such lots only, prescrip- tion will not run in his favor as to the other of such lots until after his deed has been re- corded ; but as to that lot into the possession of which he actually enters, prescription will run whether such deed be recorded or not. Carstarphen v. Holt, 96 Ga. 703. 5. Quitclaim Deed as Giving Color of Title. — Zundel v. Baldwin, 114 Ala. 328; Johnson v. Girtman, 115 Ga. 794; McVey v. Carr, 159 Mo. 648. But see Laraway v. Zenor, 100 Iowa 181. 861. 2. Lee v. O'Quin, 103 Ga. 364, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 861. 3. De Foresta v. Gast, 20 Colo. 307 ; Burns v. Edwards, 163 111. 494; Kopp v. Herrman, 82 Md. 339 ; Erdman v. Corse, 87 Md. 506. 4. The Correct View as to the Relation of Good Faith. — Brodack v . Morsbach, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 275. 159 861-865 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 861. IV. Extent of Adverse Possession — 1. Without Color of Title. — See note 5. _ 863. 2. Under Color of Title — a. General K.ULE Constructive Possession. — See note 1. 864. Limitation of the General Rule. — See notes 2, 3. 865. £. Prerequisites to Constructive Possession — (i) Color of Title — Constructive Possession Limited to Colorable Title. — See note I. Derived from Several Writings. — See note 2. (2) Actual Possession of Part of Land. — See note 3. varick, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 73- North Carolina. — Worth v. Simmons, 121 N. Car. 357. 861. 5. Smith v. Keyser, 115 Ala. 455; Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799 ; Nicklace v. Dickerson, 65 Ark. 422 ; Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 575 ; Taylor v. Combs, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 64; Krauth v. Hahn, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 18; Hackett v. Webster, 97 Md. 404; Barber v. Robinson, 78 Minn.. 193; , Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228; Sweringen v. St. Louis, 151 Mo. 348; South Omaha v. Ford,(Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 665; South Omaha v. Meehan, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 691; Ham- ilton v. Fluornoy, 44 Oregon 97 ; Pendo v. Beakey, 15 S. Dak. 356, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 36i ; Sulphur Mines Co. v. Thompson, 93 Va. 293 ; Heavner v. Mor- gan, 41 W. Va. 428; Maxwell v. Cunningham, So W. Va. 298; Bentley v. Peppard, 33 Can. Sup. Ct. 444. §63. 1. United States. — Scaife v. West- ern North Carolina Land Co., (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 238; Treece v. American Assoc, (C. C. A.) 122 Fed. Rep. 598 ; Scott v. Mineral Development Co., (C. C. A.) 130 Fed. Rep. 497. Alabama. — Zundel v. Baldwin, 114 Ala. 328; Smith v. Keyser, 115 Ala. 455 ; Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 260; Barrett u. Kelly, 131 Ala. 378; Bowling v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 550; Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799- Arkansas. — Nicklace v. Dickerson, 65 Ark. 422; Sparks v. Farris, 71 Ark. 121; Crill v. Hudson, 71 Ark. 390 ; Haggart v. Ranney, (Ark. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 703. Georgia. — Furgerson v. Bagley, 95 Ga. 516; O'Brien v. Fletcher, (Ga. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 405. Illinois. — Johns v. McKibben, 156 111. 71; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Tamplin, 156 III. 285 ; Zirngibl v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 157 111. 430 ; Bellefontaine Imp. Co. v. Niedring- haus, 181 111. 426; White v. Harris, 206 111. 584; Nauman v. Burch, 91 111. App. 48. Indiana. — Worthley v. Burbanks, 1 46 Ind. 539; Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 343. Iowa. — Libbey v. Young, 103 Iowa 258. Maryland. — Kopp v. Herrman, 82 Md. 339; Zion Church v. Hilken, 84 Md. 170; Schloss- nagle v. Kolb, 97 Md. 285. Massachusetts. — Murphy v. Com., 187 Mass. 361. Minnesota. — McRoberts v. McArthur, 62 Minn. 310; Barber v. Robinson, 78 Minn. 193, 82 Minn. 112. Mississippi. — • See Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 863. Missouri. — Heinemann v. Bennett, 144 Mo. 113 ; Plaster v. Grabeel, 160 Mo. 669 ; Stevens v. Martin, 168 Mo. 407. New York. — New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. • Brennan, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 343 ; Stillman v. Burfeind, 21 N. Y, App. Div. 13 ; Bennett v. Ko- Pennsylvania. — Stein v. Green, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 292. • Tennessee. — Duke v. Helms, 100 Tenn. 249; Winters v. Hainer, 107 Tenn. 337; Lieberman v. Clark, (Tenn. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 258. Texas. — Small v. McMurphy, 1 1 Tex. Civ. App. 4.09; Brown v. O'Brien, n Tex. Civ. App. 459; Cook v. Lister, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 31; Puryear v. Friery, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 316; Wat- kins v. Smith, 91 Tex. 589; McAdams u. Moody, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 628 ; Boggess v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 195, affirmed 94 Tex. 83 ; Coleman v. Florey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 412; Peden v . Crenshaw, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 369. Vermont. — Fullam v. Foster, 68 Vt. 590. Virginia. — Stull u. Rich Patch Iron Co., 92 Va. 253. West Virginia. — Maxwell v. Cunningham, 50 ,W. Va. 298. Canada. — Bentley v. Peppard, 33 Can. Sup. Ct. 444. 864. 2. Zirngibl v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 157 111. 430; Louisville, etc., R. Co. ■v. Gulf of Mexico Land, etc., Co., 82 Miss. 188, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 864; Archibald v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 1 N. Y. App. Div. ,251. See also Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 863. Only Land Immediately Adjacent to a part of that which is in absolute and uncontrolled pos- session can be said to be held in constructive possession. Crist v. Boust, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 543- 3. Henry v. Henry, 122 Mich. 6; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513. 865. 1. Buckley v. Mohr, 125 Cal. xix, 58 Pac. Rep. 261; South v. Deaton, 113 Ky. 312; Johnston v. Case, 131 N. Car. 491 ; Marshall v. Corbett, (N. Car. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 210; Fullam v. Foster, 68 Vt. 590 ; Lampman 1. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417. The deed under which land is held must de- termine by the boundaries therein given the extent of the constructive possession, and pos- session under such deed cannot be extended by construction to the boundaries of another and separate tract held under another deed. Broom v. Pearson, (Tex. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 790. 2. Sharp v. Shenandoah Furnace Co., 100 Va. 27. 3. Actual Possession of Part. — Kirker -v. Daniels, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 912; Herbst v. Merrifield, 133 Mo. 267; Brown v. Hartford, 173 Mo. 183; Worth v. Simmons, 121 N. Car. 357; Hines v. Moye, 125 N. Car, 8; Willamette 160 Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESS/ON. 866 869 866. Alienation of the Part Actually Occupied. — See note I. The Possession Required. — - See note 2. Under Instrument Describing Land in Separate Parcels, — See note, 3. Where Land Claimed Consists of Separate Traots. — See note 4. 867. Under Title Void as to Part Only. — See note I. Possession, by Mistake, of Land Not Covered by Colorable Title. — See notes 2, 3. (3) Claim of Right to W/tole Tract. — See note 5. 868. Color of Title, Evidence Of. — See notes I, 2. (4) Good Faith — In General. — See notes 3, 4, 5. 869. Fraud Must Be Actual. — See note I. A Question of Fact. — See note 4. c. Mixed Possession — (2) When True Owner Is in Possession of Part. — See note 6. Real Estate Co. v. Hendrix, 28 Oregon 485, 52 Am. St. Rep. 800 ; McNeeley v. South Perm Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 641, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 865. Possession by Tenant. — Possession of part of the land by a tenant is sufficient. Zundel v. Baldwin, 114 Ala. 328; Smith v. Keyser, 115 Ala. 455; Barrett ». Kelly, 131 Ala. 378; Pur- year v. Friery, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 316. See also Treece v. American Assoc, (C. C. A.) 122 Fed. Rep. 598. 866. 1. Puryear v. Friery, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 316 ; Sharp v. Shenandoah Furnace Co., 100 Va. 33, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 865, 866. 2. McRoberts v. McArthur, 62 Minn. 310; Willamette Real Estate Co. v. Hendrix, 28 Oregon 485, 52 Am. St. Rep. 800. If a person claims only to a given line, and makes no claim as to where such line is located, his adverse possession is limited to such line wherever it may be established. Wil- cox v. Smith, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 803. 3. Undivided Tract of Several Parcels. — Scaife v. Western North Carolina Land Co., (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 238 ; Brougher v. Stone, 72 Miss. 647 ; Turnage ».- Kenton, 102 Tenn. 328 ; El- liott v. Cumberland Coal, etc., Co., 109 Tenn. 749, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 866. Where an occupant's boundary covers adjoin- ing lands of separate owners, his possession on land of one of them will not be adverse posses- sion of land of the other, without actual posses- sion of such other's land, on the theory that possession of part is possession of the whole. McNeeley v . South Perm Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 616. 4. Separate and Distinct Tracts. — Carter v. Ruddy, 166 U. S. 493 ; Haggart v. Ranney, (Ark. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 703 ; Georgia Pine Invest, etc., Co. v. Holton, 94 Ga. 551 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 67 Kan. 838; McRoberts v. McArthur, 62 Minn. 310; Herbst v. Merrifield, 133 Mo. 267 ; Basnight v. Meekins, 121 ,N. Car. 23 ; Willamette Real Estate Co. v. Hendrix, 28 Oregon 485, 52 Am. St. Rep. 800 ; Wheeler v. Taylor, 32 Oregon 421, 67 Am. St. Rep. 540; McSpadden v. Starrs Mountain Iron Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 497 ; Faison v. Primm, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 834. §67. 1. Deed Void in Part. — Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 867. 2. Ohio Riv. R. Co. v. Johnson, 50 W. Va. 499. 3. Possession by Mistake. — Johnson v. Thomas, I Supp, E. of L,— 11 161 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 141 ; Roulston v. Stewart, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 200 ; Jayne v. Hanna, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 296. 5. Handley v. Barrett, 176 Pa. St. 246; Popew. Riggs, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 306. §68. 1. Presumption. — Possession under color of title is presumed to be adverse. Fag- gart v. Bost, 122 N. Car. 517. 2. Marmion v. McPeak, 51 La. Ann. 1631 ; Knight v. Denman, 64 Neb. 814. 3. See supra, this title, 850. 4. et seq. See also Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 868. 4. Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 868. 5. Lee v. O'Quin, 103 Ga. 355; Burns v. Ed- wards, 163 111. 494; Taylor v. Hamilton, 173 111. 392 ; Miller v. Rich, 204 111. 444 ; Clark v. Sexton, 122 Iowa 310; Mitchell v. Bond, 84 Miss. 72, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 868 ; Lampman v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417; McCann v. Welch, 106 Wis. 142; Pitman v. Hill, 117 Wis. 318. Presumption of Good Faith. — Possession to be the foundation for a prescription must not have originated in fraud, but direct evidence of bona fides is not required. A presumption of good faith arises from adverse possession. Baxley v. Baxley, 117 Ga. 60; Sexson v. Barker, 172 111. 361; Duck Island Club v. Bexstead, 174 111. 435; Dawson v. Edwards, 189 111. 60; Lamp- man v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417. Notice of the Adverse Claim does not establish that there was a lack of good faith on the part of the holder of color of title. Simons v. Drake, 179 111. 62 ; Keppel v. Dreier, 187 111. 298. Allowing property to be sold for taxes, and afterwards acquiring the tax title based upon such sale by purchase, is evidence of bad faith. Hanna v. Palmer, 194 111. 41. §69. 1. Connell v. Culpepper, in Ga. 805; Street v. Collier, 118 Ga. 470; Muller v. Ma- zerat, 109 La. 116. 4. Lee v. O'Quin, 103 Ga. 365, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 869. 6. True Owner in Possession of Part. — Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Tamplin, 156 111. 285; Schloss- nagle v. Kolb, 97 Md. 285 ; Potter v. Adams, 125 Mo. 118, 46 Am. St. Rep. 478. " In a case of common possession by two or more persons, the law adjudges the rightful possession to him who has the legal title ; and no length of holding in such case can give title by possession, against such legal title." QuiJ- len v. Betts, 1 Penn. (Del.) 53. . 870-875 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 870. See notes I, 2. (3) H%» Neither Claimant Has True Title. — bee note 3. 871.' See note 1. „ _ d. OVERLAPPING BOUNDARIES — Where the Owner Has Possession — General Rule. — See note 3. Both Parties in Possession Outside of Overlap. — bee note 4. 872. Both Parties in Possession of Part of Overlap. — See note I. Possession by Holder of Inferior Title Inside, and by Owner Outside, of Overlap. — See note 2. 873. Possession of Overlap by Claimant under Colorable Title. — bee note I. Possession Outside of Overlap by Such Claimant. — See note 2. 874. V. Subjects of Adverse Possession — 2. The Several Classes of Prop- erty Considered — a. Personalty. — See note 2. b. Mines. — See note 3. 875. See note 1. c. Water. — See note 2. d. Easements. — See notes 3, 4. §70. 1. Sparks v. Farris, 71 Ark. 121 ; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Tamplin, 156 111. 285; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Sloan, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 175; Proctor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., (Me. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 423; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Buford, 73 Miss. 494 ; Cuyler v. Bush, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. -W. Rep. 579; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228; Zimmerman v. Kennedy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 642; Beaumont Pasture Co. v. Polk, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 614; Payton v. Caplen, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 364; Freedman v. Bonner, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 47. 2. See Carter v. Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563. 3. Title in Neither Claimant. — Reddick v. Long, 124 Ala. 267, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 870. 871. ' 1. Libbey v. Young, 103 Iowa 258. 3. See Caudill v. Caudill, (Ky. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 957; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Crab- tree, 113 Ky. 922; Hebard v. Scott, 95 Tenn. 467; Elliott v. Cumberland Coal, etc., Co., 109 Tenn. 745; Zimmerman v. Kennedy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 642; Zapeda v. Hoff- man, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 312. 4. Krauth v. Hahn, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 18; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Crabtree, 113 Ky. 922 ; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Sloan, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 175; Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291 ; Harman v. Ratliff, 93 Va. 249. 872. 1. Hall v. Blanton, (Ky. 1904) 77 S. W. Rep. mo; Wilson v. Braden, 48 W. Va. 196. 2. Goltermann v. Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291 ; Tellico Mfg. Co. v. Williams, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 1075; Fry v. Stowers, 98 Va. 417; Wilson v. Braden, 48 W. Va. 196. But see Vintroux v. Simms, 45 W. Va. 548. 873. 1. Swafford v. Herd, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 803 ; Kirby v. Scott, (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 749 ; Polk v. Beaumont Pasture Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 242. Subsequent Entry by Owner, — " The rule is well settled that where the junior patentee enters first, his possession will extend to his boundary, and will not be interrupted by a sub- sequent entry of the senior patentee outside of the lap." Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Reyn- plds, 60 S. VV. Rep, 6,33, 23 Ky. L^, Jtep, 1389, ?ft? 2. McCoy v. De Long, 58 S. W. Rep. 704, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 719; Hall v. Blanton, (Ky. 1904) 77 S. W. Rep. 1110; Walsh v. Wheelwright, 96 Me. 1 74 ; Roach v. Fletcher, 1 1 Tex. Civ. App. 225 ; Cook v. Lister, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 31 ; Wil- son v. Braden, 48 W. Va. 196. See also Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co., 105 Tenn. 563. 874. 2. Other Chattels. — Kopp v. Herrman, 82 Md. 339 ; Morris v. Lowe, 97 Tenn. 243 ; Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co., 105 Tenn. 574, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 874. 3. Mines. — Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141; Catlin Coal Co. v. Lloyd, 176 111. 275; Horst v. Shea, 23 Mont. 390. See Manning v. Kansas, etc., Coal Co., 181 Mo. 359. 875. 1. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Massey, 136 Ala. 156, 96 Am. St. Rep. 17; Catlin Coal Co. v. Lloyd, 176 111. 275; Manning v. Kansas, etc., Coal Co., 181 Mo. 359 ; Brady v. Brady, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 411; Finnegan v. Pennsylvania Trust Co., 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 124; Delaware, etc., Canal Co. v. Hughes, 183 Pa. St. 66, 63 Am. St. Rep. 743; Finnegan v. Pennsylvania Trust Co., 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 68 ; Murray v. Allred, 100 Tenn. 100, 66 Am. St. Rep. 740. 2. Water. — Union Mill, etc., Co. v. Dang- berg, 81 Fed. Rep. 73 ; Smith v. Green, 109 Cal. 228 ; Dexter v. Jefferson Paper Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 389; Bowman v. Bowman, 35 Oregon 279 ; McLemore v. Lomax, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905)' 86 S. W. Rep. 635; Yeager v. Woodruff, 17 Utah 369; Center Creek Water, etc., Co. v. Lindsay, 21 Utah 192; Hunter v. Emerson, 75 Vt. 173. 3. Easements. — La Crosse v. Cameron, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 264 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 154 111. 550; Wahls v. Brandt, 175 111. 354; Waters v. Snouffer, 88 Md. 391; Schulenberg v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 70 ; Spot- tiswoode v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 322 ; Hindley v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 56; Lewis v. New York, etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 202 ; Hudson v. Watson, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 366 j Wilkins v. Nicolai, 99 W|st j?§j Ker y, Little, 25 Qn{, A PP' Jl?7i Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 875-878 8 73. Bight of Way. — See note 5. 876. e. Public Lands. — See note 1. /. State Lands— General xtuie. — See note 2. 877. Adverse Possession by Statute. — See note I. 878. Presumption of Grant. — See note I. g. Property of Municipal and Quasi-municipal Corpora- tions — (1) Property Dedicated to Public Uses — Highways, Streets, Parks, Etc. — See note 2. Burial Lot. — See Meiggs v. Hoagland, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 182. 875. 4. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Zeh- ner, 15 Ind. App. 273; Matthews v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., no Mich. 170, 64 Am. St. Rep. 336; Downing v. Dinwiddie, 132 Mo. 92; Dep- pen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434. 6. Right of Way. — Pennington v. Lewis, 4 Penn. (Del.) 447 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Munsell, 192 111. 430 ; Clement v. Bettle, 65 N. J. L. 675 ; Shell v. Poulson, 23 Wash. 535 ; Wooldridge v. Coughlin, 46 W. Va. 349, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 875. 876. 1. Lands Owned by United States. — Redfield v. Parks, 132 U. S. 239; Sutter v. Heckman, 1 Alaska 81 ; Lewis v. Johnson, 1 Alaska 529; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 118 Iowa 458, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 875 [876] ; Janes v. Wilkinson, 2 Kan. App. 361 ; Perkins v. Vincent, 47 La. Ann. 579 ; State v. Lake St. Clair Fishing, etc., Club, 127 Mich. 592, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 876; Topping v. Cohn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 372; Altschul v. Clark, 39 Oregon 315. And see generally the title State and Public Lands. As to when title from the United ' States is perfected so as to set the statute of limitations running, see Gonsoulin v. Gulf Co., (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 251; Joplin v. Chachere, 192 U. S. 94; Williams Invest. Co. v. Pugh, 137 Ala. 346 ; Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Langstedt, 1 Alaska 439; Adams v. Hopkins, (Cal. 1902) 69 Pac. Rep. 228 ; Toltec Ranch Co. v. Babcock, 24 Utah 183, affirmed Toltec Ranch Co. v. Cook, 24 Utah 453. The Statute of Limitations Cannot Avail a Pre- emption Claimant. — See Doe v. Beck, 108 Ala. 7i- A Person in Possession in Subordination to the Title of the United States. — See Toltec Ranch Co. v. Babcock, 24 Utah 183, affirmed Toltec Ranch Co. v. Cook, 24 Utah 453. Homestead Entry. — Wormouth v. Gardner, 1 05 Cal. 149. Indian Lands. — There can exist no adverse possession of lands in a private party while such lands are a portion of the Indian country, and the right of occupancy in the Indians has not been terminated by the United States. Kreuger v. Schultz, 6 N. Dak. 310. 2. State Lands. — Wagnon v. Fairbanks, 105 Ala. 527; Wiggins v. Kirby, 106 Ala. 262; Stringfellow v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 117 Ala. 250 ; Adler v. Prestwood, (Ala. 1899) 24 So. Rep. 999 ; Kapiolani Estate v. Cleghorn, 14 Hawaii 346 ; Hammond v. Shepard, 186 111. 235, 78 Am. St. Rep. 274; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152, 97 Am. St. Rep. 292; Taylor v. Combs, (Ky, 1 §99) §0 S, ^V; R?p, 64; glattery p, Heil- l*J perin, no La. 86; Bright v. New Orleans R. Co., (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 494; Ulman v. Charles St. Ave. Co., 83 Md. 130 ; Topping v. Cohn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 372; Zapeda v. Hoffman, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 312; Reusens v. Lawson, 91 Va. 226; Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot, 109 Wis. 418, 83 Am. St. Rep. 905. No Adverse Possession Before Patent. — Taylor v. Combs, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 64; Dooley v. Maywald, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 386. 877. 1. Adverse Possession by Statute. — Harrison v. Dolan, 172 Mass. 395; Schneider v. Hutchinson, 35 Oregon 253, 76 Am. St. Rep. 474- 878. 1. Presumption of Grant. — Lewis v. Overby, 126 N. Car. 347. Break in Possession. — Lewis v. Overby, 126 N. Car. 347. 2. Cases Holding that Title Can Be Acquired Against Municipality — Arkansas. — Broad v. Beatty, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 339. Kentucky. — Cadiz v. Hillman, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 4 g. Michigan. — Vier v. Detroit, in Mich. 646 ; Darrow v. Homer, 122 Mich. 229 ; State v. Dick- inson, 129 Mich. 221 ; Schneider v. Detroit, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 258. Minnesota. — The rule that a public easement in the street could be acquired by adverse pos- session has been changed for all future pur- poses by Laws Minn. 1899, c. 65. Hastings v. Gillitt, 85 Minn. 331 ; Haramon v. Krause, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 791. Nebraska. — Florence v. White, 50 Neb. 516; Webster v. Lincoln, 56 Neb. 502. See also Wahoo v. Netheway, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 86. Code Civ. Pro. Neb., § 6, as amended in 1899, provides "that there shall be no limita- tion to the time within which any county, city, town, village, or other municipal corporation may begin an action for the recovery of the title or possession of any public road, street, alley, or other public grounds or city or town lots." Krueger v. Jenkins, 59 Neb. 641 ; Weatherford v. Union Pac. R. Co., (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1089. Ohio. — Winslow v. Cincinnati, 9 Ohio Dec. 89, 6 Ohio N. P. 47; Morehouse v. Burgot, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 163, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 174. Highway. — Title by adverse possession may be obtained against the county. Axmear v. Richards, 112 Iowa 657; McDougal v. Popken, (Iowa 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 1088. County Road. — Title to a county road can be acquired by adverse possession. Grady v. Dundon, 30 Oregon 333. Cases Holding that Title Cannot Be Acquired Against Municipality — United States. — Lon- don, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 86 Fed. Rep. 30 : Snowden v, Loree, 1?* Fed, Rep, 493, 882-883 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I. 883. (2) Property Held in Private Right. — See note 2. (3) Equitable Estoppel. — See note 3. 883. VI. Effect of Adverse Possession. — See note 1. Alabama. — Mobile Transp. Co. -u. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143. California. — Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 160; Home for Care of In- ebriate v. San Francisco, 119 Cal. 534. Georgia. — Langley v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 590, 98 Am. St. Rep. 133; Worrell v. Augusta R., etc., Co., 116 Ga. 316, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 878. Illinois. — Sullivan v. Tichenor, 179 111. 97; De Kalb v. Luney, 193 111. 185; Shirk v. Chi- cago, 195 111. 298 ; Owen v. Brookport, 208 111. 35. Indiana. — Kelly v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 28 Ind. App. 457, 91 Am. St. Rep. 134; Hall v. Breyfogle, 162 Ind. 494. Iowa. — Weber v. Iowa City, 119 Iowa 638, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.)' 878; Markham v. Anamosa, 122 Iowa 689; Taraldson v. Lime Springs, 92 Iowa 187. Louisiana. — Handlin v. H. Weston Lumber Co., 47 La. Ann. 401 ; Board of Control v. Weston Lumber Co., 109 La. 925. Maryland. — Ulman v. Charles St. Ave. Co., 83 Md. 130. Missouri. — Columbia v. Bright, 179 Mo. 441. New Jersey. — Atlantic City v. Snee, 68 N. J. L- 39- New York. — Timpson v . New York, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 424; Slattery v. McCaw, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 426. North Carolina. — Turner v. Hillsboro Com'rs, 127 N. Car. 153. Pennsylvania. — Jones v. Girard, 26 Pa. Co. Ct. 390, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 878.; Washington Female Seminary v. Washington, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 545. South Carolina. — Chaffee v. Aiken, 57 S. Car. 507. Tennessee. — Raht v. Southern R. Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 50 S. W. Rep. 72. Virginia. — Depriest'i*. Jones, (Va. 1895) 21 S. E. Rep. 478. , West- Virginia. — Ralston v. Weston, 46 W. Va. 554, 76 Am. St. Rep. 834, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of law (2d ed.) 878, and over- ruling Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 W. Va. 36; Teass v. St. Albans, 38 W. Va. 1 ; Foley v. County Ct., 54 W. Va. 31, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 878. Wisconsin. — See Nicolai v. Davis, 91 Wis. 370- Partial Encroachment on Public Road. — The right of an adjoining landowner to inclose by a fence a portion of a public highway cannot be acquired by adverse possession. Heddleston v. Hendricks, 52 Ohio St. 460 ; Rae v. Miller, 99 Iowa 650 ; Krueger v. Jenkins, 59 Neb. 641 ; Lydick v. State, 61 Neb. 309. Adverse User of Abandoned Street or Highway. — Jordan v. Chenoa, 166 111. 530; Carlinville v. Castle, 177 111. 105, 69 Am. St. Rep. 212. Comp. Stat. Neb., 1899, c. 78, § 3, providing " that all roads that have not been used within five years shall be deemed vacated," applies only to roads which have been entirely aban- doned. It does not apply to the unused parts of a road lying on either side of the line of travel. Krueger v. Jenkins, 59 Neb. 641. 164 Artificial Lake. — Under Sayles's Rev. Civ. Stat. Tex., 1897, art. 3351, a body of water dedicated to public use cannot be acquired by adverse possession. Gillean v. Frost, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 345.. 882. 2. Land Held in Private Right. — Ham- mond v. Shepard, 186 111. 235, 78 Am. St. Rep. 274; Turner v. Hillsboro Com'rs, 127 N. Car. 153. See also Krueger v. Jenkins, 59 Neb. 641 ; Johnson v. Llano County, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 421. 3. Equitable Estoppel. — Sullivan v. Tichenor, 179 111. 97; Edwardsville v. Barnsback, 66 111. App. 381; De Kalb v. Luney, 193 111. 185; Uptagraff v. Smith, 106 Iowa 385; Blennerhas- sett v. Forest City, 117 Iowa 680; Markham v. Anamosa, 122 Iowa 689 ; Morehouse v. Burgot, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 163, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 174. Absence of Estoppel. — Where taxes are spe- cially assessed on the land occupied by a street the question of estoppel can arise ; but where the owner paid taxes on certain lots/ and there is no claim that the highway covers all or a considerable portion of the lots, the city is not estopped. Cedar Rapids v. Young, 119 Iowa 552. Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Rejected. — Ralston v. Weston, 46 W. Va. 555, 76 Am. St. Rep. 834, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 882. 883. 1. Adverse Possession Vests Title — United States. — East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co. v. Wiggin, (C. C. A.) 68 Fed. Rep. 446; Elder v. McClaskey, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 529; Ward v. Cochran, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 127; West v. East Coast Cedar Co., (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 621 ; H. B. Claflin Co. v. Middlesex Banking Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 958. - Alabama. — Inglis v. Webb, 117 Ala. 387; Pittman v. Pittman, 124 Ala. 306. California. — Woodward v. Faris, 109 Cal. 12; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Whi taker, 109 Cal. 268; Baker v. Clark, 128 Cal. 181. Georgia. — Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Gardner, 113 Ga. 897; Johnson v. Girtman, 115 Ga. 794. Indiana. — McKinney v. Lanning, 139 Ind. 170; Wood v. Ripley, 27 Ind. App. 356; Webb v. Rhodes, 28 Ind. App. 393. Kentucky. — Brown v. Swango, (Ky. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep* 156; Pollock v. Maysville, etc., R. Co., 103 Ky. 84; Hornsby v. Davidson, (Ky. 1900) ss S. W. Rep. 684; Fain v. Miles, 60 S. W. Rep. 939, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1584; Logan v. Phenix, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1042. Louisiana. — Goodwin v. McNeely, 104 La. 19; Mortimer v. Hodgson, 105 La. 734; In re Lockhart, 109 La. 740. Massachusetts. — Percival v. Chase, 182 Mass. 371. Michigan. — Barnard v. Brown, 112 Mich. 452, 67 Am. St. Rep. 432. Missouri. — Heinemann v. Bennett, 144 Mo. 113; Ross v. McCain, 145 Mo. 271; Stevens v. Martin, 168 Mo. 407; Kirton v. Bull, 168 Mo. 622 ; Scannell v. American Soda Fountain Co., 161 Mo. 606; Franklin v. Cunningham, 187 Mo. 184. Nebraska. — Lantry v. Wolff, 49 Neb. 374; Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. *<*G 886. See note i. VII. Evidence 1. A Question of Law and Fact. — See notes 2, 3. Florence v. White, 50 Neb. 516; Fink v. Daw- son, 52 Neb. 647; Oldig v. Fisk, 53 Neb. 156; McAllister v. Beymer, 54 Neb. 247 ; Cervena v. Thurston, 59 Neb. 343. New Jersey. — Spottiswoode v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 322. New Mexico. — Solomon v. Yrisarri, 9 N. Mex. 480 ; Pueblo v. Romero, 10 N. Mex. 58. New York. — Hamerschlag v. Duryea, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 678, affirmed 172 N. Y. 622; Hindley v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 56. North Carolina. — Taylor v. Smith, 121 N. Car. 76 ; Bullock v. Lake Drummond Canal, etc., Co., 132 N. Car. 179; Woodlief v. Woodlief, 136 N. Car. 133. Oregon. — Barrell v. Title Guarantee, etc., Co., 27 Oregon 77 ; Ambrose v. Huntington, 34 Oregon 484; Beale v. Hite, 35 Oregon 176, rehearing denied 35 Oregon 182 ; Hamilton v. Fluornoy, 44 Oregon 97. Pennsylvania. — Patterson v. Wheeler, 1 3 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 16. Rhode Island. — Radican v. Radican, 22 R. I. 405- South Carolina. — Sutton v. Clark, 59 S. Car. 440, 82 Am. St. Rep. 848 ; Few v. Keller, 63 S. Car. 154. Tennessee. — Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co., 105 Tenn. 571, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 883 ; East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co. v. Broyles, 95 Tenn. 612; Buttery v. Brown, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 713; Earnest v. Little River Land, etc., Co., 109 Tenn. 427. Texas. — Bowyer v. Robertson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 916 ; Hines v. Lump- kin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 556 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bancroft, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 606 ; Grayson v. Peyton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 1074; Burton v. Carroll, 96 Tex. 320. Virginia. — Stull v. Rich Patch Iron Co., 92 Va. 253. Washington. — Rogers v. Miller, 13 Wash. 82, 52 Am. St. Rep. 20 ; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ely, 25 Wash. 384 ; Kline v. Stein, 30 Wash. 189. West Virginia. — Parkersburg Industrial Co. , v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 475, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 883 ; Adkins v. Spurlock, 46 W. Va. 142, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 883 ; Wilson v. Braden, 48 W. Va. 196; Summerfield v. White, 54 W. Va. 311 ; Bennett v. Pierce, 50 W. Va. 604. Bar to Ejectment. — Ward u. Cochran, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 127; Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52; Austin v. Colson, (Ky. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 486 ; Bowyer v. Robertson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 916. Bar to Belief in Equity. — Keppel v. Dreier, 187 111. 298; Davidson v. Thomas, (Iowa 1901) 86 N. W. Rep. 291. See also the following cases as to the effect of adverse possession to create title or as a bar to an action to recover lands : Illinois. — Sanitary Dist. v. Allen, 1 78 111. 330; Mickey vl Barton, 194 111. 446. Iowa. — Independent Dist. v. Fagen, 94 Iowa 676; Roth v. Munzenmaier, 118 Iowa 326. Kentucky. — Howes v. Kirk, (Ky. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 1032 ; Woolley v. McCormick, (Ky. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 885 ; Terry v. Hilton, (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 216. Maryland. — Erdman v. Corse, 87 Md. 506. Michigan. — Vier v. Detroit, 1 1 1 Mich. 646. New Jersey. — Ely v. Wilson, 61 N. J. Eq. 94. South Carolina. — Busby v. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 45 S. Car. 312; Duren v. Kee, 50 S. Car. 444. Tennessee. — French v. French, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 517- Texas. — Parsons v. Thompson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 327; Vodrie v. Ty- nan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 680. Virginia. — Virginia Midland R. Co. v. Bar- bour, 97 Va. 118; Chesterman v. Boiling, 102 Va. 471.- Wisconsin. — McCann v. Welch, 106 Wis. 142; Gilman u. Brown, 115 Wis. 1. Dower. — Lucas v. Whitacre, 121 Iowa 251. Colorado Statute. — Evans v. Welch, 29 Colo. 355- Adverse Possession of Land for a Period Less than That Prescribed. — Bradshaw v. Ashley, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 485; Hall u. Gallemore, 138 Mo. 638. Title Once Acquired by Adverse Possession Cannot Be Divested by Subsequent Declarations. — Jones v. Williams, 108 Ala. 282; Parham v. Dedman, 66 Ark. 26 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wakefield, 173 111. 564; Rand v. Huff, 59 Kan. 777, 53 Pac. Rep. 483 ; Lamoreaux v. Creveling, 103 Mich. 501 ; Sage v. Rudnick, 67 Minn. 362; Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735, 744 ; Williams v. Rand, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 631 ; Mann v. Schuel- ing, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 292. See also McKinney v. Lanning, 139 Ind. 170; Fatic v. Myer, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 142; Fulton v. Borders, 61 S. W. Rep. 1001, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1876; Webb v. Thiele, 56 Neb. 752. 886. 1. Snowden v. Loree, 122 Fed. Rep. 493; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Moore, 160 111. 9; Donahue v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 165 111. 640; Sanitary Dist. v. Allen, 178 111. 330; Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52 ; Clinton v . Franklin, 83 S. W. Rep. 142, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 1053; Roecker i/. Harperla, 138 Mo. 33; Spottiswoode v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 322; Barrell v. Title Guarantee, etc., Co., 27 Oregon yy ; Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron, etc., Co., 105 Tenn. 571, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 883 [886] ; Northern Counties Invest. Trust v. Enyard, 24 Wash. 366 ; Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. Adverse possession for ten years gives a good title which may be affirmatively asserted against one not protected by some disability. Cave v. Anderson, 50 S. Car. 293. 2. What Constitutes Adverse Possession — Ques- tion of Law for Court. — Reid v. Anderson, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 30 ; Banks v. Collins, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 519; Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228; Hendricks v. Musgrove, 183 Mo. 300; Schwab v. Bickel, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 312; Kurz v . Miller, 89 Wis. 426. 165 887 ADVERSE POSSESSION. Vol. I 887. 2. Burden of Proof. — See note i. 3. Clear Proof Required. — See note 2. §§6. 3. Whether the Eequisite Facts Exist — Question for the Jury — Alabama. — Zundel v. Baldwin, 114 Ala. 328. Connecticut.- — Merwin v. Morris, 71 Conn. 555- District of Columbia. — Reid v. Anderson, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 3°- Georgia. — Cochran v. Warlick, in Ga. 396 ; Baxley v. Baxley, 117 Ga. 60; Georgia Iron, etc., Co. v. Allison, 121 Ga. 483. Kansas. — Douglas v. Muse, 62 Kan. 865. Kentucky. — Owsley v. Owsley, (Ky. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 397. Michigan. — McKay v. Gardner, 120 Mich. 267. Minnesota. — Kelly v. Palmer, 91 Minn. 133. Missouri. — Benne v. Miller, 149 Mo. 228 ; Sell v. McAnaw, 158 Mo. 466. Nebraska. — Webb v. Thiele, 56 Neb. 752; Ritter v. Myers, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 638. New Hampshire. — Hopkins v. Deering, 7 1 N. H. 353- New York. — Buffalo Creek R. Co. v. Collins, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 8. North Carolina. — Britton o. Ruffin, 122 N. Car. 113. Pennsylvania. — Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434 ; Schwab v. Bickel, 1 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 312. South Carolina. — Bryce v. Cayce, 62 S. Car. 546- Texas. — Cartwright v. Pipes, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 309. Vermont. — Jangraw v. Mee, 75 Vt. 211, 98 Am. St. Rep. 816. Wisconsin. — Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426 ; Lampman -v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417; Illinois Steel Co. v. Jeka, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 399- Canada. — Miller v. Wolfe, 30 Nova Scotia 277. Ouster. — Roumillot v. Gardner, 113 Ga. 60. 887. 1. Burden of Proof — Alabama. — Eureka Co. v. Norment, 104 Ala. 625 ; Newton v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., no Ala. 474; Carter v . Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563 ; Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499; Pittman v. Pittman, 124 Ala. 306; Bowling v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 550; Wilkinson v. Lehman-Durr Co., 136 Ala. 463- Arkansas. — Nicklace v. Dickerson, 65 Ark. 422; McConnell v. Day, 61 Ark. 464. California. — Tuffree v. Polhemus, 108 Cal. 670; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Whitaker, 109 Cal. 268; Nathan v. Dierssen, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 739. Colorado. — Evans v. Welch, 29 Colo. 355. Delaware. — Doe v. Pepper, 2 Marv. (Del.) 221. District of Columbia. — Holtzman v. Doug- las, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397. Florida. — Wilkins v. Pensacola City Co., 36 Fla. 36. Georgia. — Harris v. Cole, 114 Ga. 295. Hawaii. — Albertina v. Kapiolani Estate, 14 Hawaii 325, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 888. Illinois. — Donahue v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 165 111. 640. Indiana. — Webb v. Rhodes, 28 Ind. App. 393 ; Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 343- Iowa. — Bader v. Dyer, 106 Iowa 715, 68 Am. St. Rep. 332; McClenahan v. Stevenson, 118 Iowa 106. But see Klinkner v. Schmidt, 114 Iowa 695. Kansas. — Ard v. Wilson, 60 Kan. 857, 56 Pac. Rep. 80, affirming 8 Kan. App. 471. Kentucky. — Chenault v. Quisenberry, (Ky. 1900)/ 56 S. W. Rep. 410. Louisiana. — Landry v. Landry, 105 La. 362; Chapman v. Morris Bldg., etc., Imp. Assoc, 108 La. 283. Maine. — Batchelder v. Robbins, 95 'Me. 59. Massachusetts. — See Murphy v. Com., 187 Mass. 361. Missouri. — Price v. Hallett, 138 Mo. 561; Hendrickson v. Grable, 157 Mo. 42; Hunnewell v. Burchett, 152 Mo. 611 ; Hunnewell v. Adams, 153 Mo. 440. Nebraska. — Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 744. New York. — Lewis v. New York, etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 229, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 778 [887] ; Bissing v. Smith, 85 Hun (N. Y.) 564; Miner v. Hilton, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 55; Cutting v. Burns, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 185 ; Lambert v. Huber, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 462; Archibald v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574. North Carolina. — Bradsher v. Hightower, 118 N. Car. 399; Monk v. Wilmington, (N. Car. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 345. Oregon. — Altschul v. O'Neill, 35 Oregon 202; Altschul v. Casey, (Oregon 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 1083. Pennsylvania. — Collins v. Lynch, 167 Pa. St. 635. South Carolina. — Love v. Love, 57 S. Car. 530 ; Hunter v. Hunter, 63 S. Car. 78, 90 Am. St. Rep. 663. Tennessee. — Fuller v. Jackson, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 274. Texas. — Smith v. Estill, 87 Tex. 264 ; O'Con- nor v. Dykes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 29 S. W. Rep. 920; Cochran v. Moerer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 495. Utah. — Dignan v. Nelson, 26 Utah 186; English v. Openshaw, (Utah 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 476. West Virginia. — Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 250 ; Wilson v. Braden, (W. Va. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 409. Wisconsin. — Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426 ; Allis v. Field, 89 Wis. 327 ; Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406. 2. Clear and Positive Proof Required — Colo- rado. — Evans v. Welch, 29 Colo. 353. District of Columbia. — Holtzman v. Doug- las, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397. Florida. — Wilkins v. Pensacola City Co., 36 Fla. 36. Illinois. — Davis v. Howard, 172 111. 344, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 887 ; Zirngibl v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 157 111. 430; Burns v. Edwards, 163 111. 494; Davis v. Howard, 172 111. 340; Clayton v. Feig, 179 111. 534; Travers v. McElvain, 181 111. 382 ; Roby v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 211 111. 173. 166 Vol. I. ADVERSE POSSESSION. 887 Iowa. — Litchfield v. Sewell, 97 Iowa 247. Kentucky. — Wohlwend v. Weingardner, ( Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 928. New Jersey. — Munger v. Curley, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 306. New York. — Sanders v. Riedinger, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 289 ; Cutting v. Burns, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 185. Ohio. — »Happ v. Dayton, etc., R. Co., 14 Ohio Dec. 172. Pennsylvania. — Kron v. Dougherty, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 163. South Carolina. — Thomas v. Dempsey, 53 S. Car. 216. Tennessee. — Sequatchie Valley Coal, etc., Co. v. Coppinger, 95 Tenn. 526 ; Fuller v. Jack- son, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 274. Texas. — Smith v. Estill, 87 Tex. 264 ; Leon & H. Blum Land Co. v. Rogers, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 184. West Virginia. — Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. Wisconsin. — Allis v. Field, 89 Wis. 327 ; Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426; Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406; Lampman v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417; Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403; Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123 ; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. Canada. — Mclntyre v. Thompson, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 163. " Adverse possession may be shown by infer- ence. A strong circumstance from which such possession may be inferred is the making of permanent improvements such as the erection of division fences., the planting of orchards, or the erection of substantial buildings on the prem- ises in controversy." Hill v. Coal Valley Min. Co., 103 111. App. 41. It Blast Be Shown that the successive claim- ants have paid all taxes levied and assessed on the land, that the possession was continuous and uninterrupted, and either that such posses- sion was protected by a substantial inclosure, or that the land was usually cultivated or im- proved. Nathan v. Dierssen, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 739. For Cases Where the Evidence Was Held Suffi- cient to Show Adverse Possession, see the fol- lowing : Alabama. — Stephens v. Moore, 116 Ala. 397. Arkansas. — Broad v. Beatty, (Ark. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 339 ; Robinson v. Nordman, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 592. California. — Baum v. Roper, 132 Cal. 42; Andrus v. Smith, 133 Cal. 78. Georgia. — Robson v. Shelnutt, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 91. Illinois. — Sullivan v. Eddy, 164 111. 391. Iowa. — Independent Dist. v. Fagen, 94 Iowa 676; St. Luke's Parish v. Miller, (Iowa 1900) 84 N. W. Rep. 686; Hohl v. Osborne, (Iowa 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 697. Kentucky. — Reno v. Blackburn, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 775. Louisiana. — Goodwin v. McNeely, 104 La. 19; Dowdell v. Orphans' Home Soc, (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 16. Maine. — Wiggin v. Mullen, 96 Me. 375. Maryland. — Nicolal v. Baltimore, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 627. Massachusetts. — Murphy v. Com., 187 Mass. 361. Michigan. — Miskwabik Development Assoc. v. Croze, (Mich. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 558. Minnesota. — Glover v. Sage, 87 Minn. 526 ; Young v. Grieb, (Minn. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 131- Mississippi. — Gathings v. Miller, 76 Miss. 651. Nebraska. — Twohig v. Learner, 48 Neb. 247 ; Williams 0. Shepherdson, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 827. New York. — Cornelius v. Hall, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 663. ' North Carolina. — Dean v. Gupton, 136 N. Car. 141. Oregon. — Slater v. Reed, 37 Oregon 274. Pennsylvania. — Williams v. Beam, 196 Pa. St. 341 ; Hart v. Williams, 189 Pa. St. 31. Tennessee. — Fuller v. Jackson, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 274; Savage v. Bon Air Coal, etc., Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. App. 594. Texas. — Brown v. O'Brien, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 459 ; Alley v. Bailey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 821 ; McCarty v. Johnson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 184; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Maynard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 255 ; Carlyle v. Pruett, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 84 S. W. Rep. 372 ; Houston v. Finnigan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 470. Virginia. — Lusk v. Pelter, 101 Va. 790. Washington. — McAuliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 141 ; Rogers v. Miller, 13 Wash. 82, 52 Am. St. Rep. 20; Bowers v. Ledgerwood, 25 Wash. 14; Olson v. Howard, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 170; Noyes v. Douglas, (Wash. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 724. For Cases Where the Evidence Was Held Insuffi- cient to Show Adverse Possession see the fol- lowing : United States. — Western Union Beef Co. v. Thurman, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 960 ; Palmer v. Lansburgh, 102 Fed. Rep. 376 ; Snowden v. Loree, 122 Fed. Rep. 493 ; Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Langstedt, (C. C. A.) 136 Fed. Rep. 124. Alabama. — Croft v. Doe, 125 Ala. 391; Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799- Arkansas. — Boynton v. Ashabranner, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 566. California. — Nathan v. Dierssen, (Cal. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 739. Illinois. — Hayden v. McCloskey, 161 111. 351; McCauley v. Mahon, 174 111. 384; Dewitt v. Shea, 203 111. 393, 96 Am. St. Rep. 311. Kentucky. — Hibbard v. Wilson, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 1086. Maryland. — Hackett v. Webster, 97 Md. 404. Minnesota. — St. Paul v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Minn. 330. Missouri. — Hendrickson v. Grable, 157 Mo. 42. Nebraska. — Zweibel v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 597 ; Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 744. New Mexico. — Catron v. Laughlin, (N. Mex. 1903) 72 Pac. Rep. 26. New York. — Freedman v. Oppenheim, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 487. North Carolina. — Everett v. Newton, 118 N. Car. 919 ; Prevatt v. Harrelson, 132 N. Car. 250. Pennsylvania. — Huss v. Jacobs, 210 Pa. St. 145- South Carolina. — Thomas v. Dempsey, 53 S. Car. 216. 167 , SS9-S91 ADVERSE POSSESSION. 889. 4. Presumptions of Law. — See note i. 89©. See note i. 5. What Evidence Admissible — Invalid Deed., — bee note 2. 891. Eecord of Suit. — See note I. Declarations. — See note 2. Vol. I. Tennessee. — Beard v. Utley, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 735- U tah. — English v. Openshaw, (Utah 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 476. Vermont. — Mitchell v. Prepont, 68 Vt. 613. Virginia. — Harman v. Stearns, 95 Va. 58. Washington. — Mclnerney v. Beck, 10 Wash. 515- 889. 1. Presumption of Law Is in Favor of True Owner — Alabama. — Newton v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., no Ala. 474.' See also Croft v. Doe, 125 Ala. 391. California. — Allen v. McKay, (Cal. 1902) 70 Pac. Rep. 8. Colorado. — Evans v. Welch, 29 Colo. 355. Illinois. — Zirngibl v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 157 HI- 430- Iowa McClenahan v. Stevenson, 118 Iowa 106. Louisiana. — Dowdell v. Orphans' Home Soc, (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 16. Missouri. — Hunnewell v. Burchett, 152 Mo. 611. New York. — Heller v. Cohen, 154 N. Y. 299 ; Archibald v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574, affirming (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 37 N. Y. Supp. 1143, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 251; Sanders v. Riedinger, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 289 ; Monohan v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 619; Miner v. Hilton, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 55 ; Cutting v. Burns, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 185; Arents v. Long Island R. Co., 156 N. Y. 1. North Carolina. — Monk v. Wilmington, (N. Car. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 345. Ohio. — Happ v. Dayton, etc., R. Co., 14 Ohio Dec. 172. Oregon. — Altschul v. O'Neill, 35 Oregon 202. South Carolina. — Metz v. Metz, 48 S. Car. 472- Utah. — ■ Funk v. Anderson, 22 Utah 238. Wisconsin. — Allis v. Field, 89 Wis. 327 ; Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426 ; Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406; Ryan v. Schwartz, 94 Wis. 403; Wollman v. Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31 ; Meyer v. Hope, 10 1 Wis. 123; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. Lapse of Time. — Adverse possession is not a matter open, to presumption, but its continu- ance for the statutory period under a claim or color of title is required to be proved. Atkin- son v. Smith, (Va. 1896) 24 S. E. Rep. 901. Title Decreed with Plaintiff — Entry by Defend- ant. — See Du Pont v. Charleston Bridge Co., 65 S. Car. 524. 890. 1. Albertina v. Kapiolani Estate, 14 Hawaii 325, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 888, 890 ; Kapiolani Estate v. Cleghorn, 14 Hawaii 338, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 890 ; Shaw v. Smithes, 167 111. 269 ; Webb v. Rhodes, 28 Ind. App. 393; Rennert v. Shirk, 163 Ind. 542, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 889-890; Browning v. Davis, (Ky. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 9 ; Cameron -a. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Minn. 100 ; Carroll County v. Estes, 72 Miss. 171; Alexander v. Gibbon, 118 N. Car. 796, 54 Am. St. Rep. 757; Satcher v. Grice, 53 S. Car. 126; Toltec Ranch Co. v. Babcock, 24 Utah 192, quoting t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 890 ; Wollman v. Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31 ; Meyer v. Hope, 101 Wis. 123; Wollman v. Ruehle, 104 Wis. 603; Bishop v. Bleyer, 105 Wis. 330; Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 106 Wis. 499, 80 Am. St. Rep. 54; Pit- man v. Hill, 117 Wis. 318; Illinois Steel Co. v. Jeka, 119 Wis. 122. See also Buffalo Creek R. Co. v. Collins, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 8. A grant of lands may be presumed from acts of exclusive use and continuous occupation for ten years or more when such use and occupa- tion are accompanied by a claim of ownership. Flanagan v. Mathieson, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 287. See also, as to evidence required to rebut a plea of adverse possession, Amite County v. Steen, 72 Miss. 567. 2. Kepley v. Scully, 185 111. 52; Reusens v. Lawson, 91 Va. 226. A Tax Deed, Though Void, would be evidence, as color of title, to mark the boundaries and extent of the' purchaser's possession if there was any evidence that the plaintiff entered and claimed under it. National Bank v. Baker Hill Iron Co., 108 Ala. 635 ; Chabert v. Russell, 109 Mich. 571. See also Barron v. Barron, 122 Ala. 194; Pasley v. Richardson, 119 N. Car. 449. The Eecord of a Tax Sale was admissible in evidence in connection with other evidence, to show the character of the possession, as being under a claim of ownership, and in hostility to the true owner, and thus to show an adverse holding of so much of the land as was in actual possession. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Mathis, 109 Ala. 377. A Trustee's Deed, whether it was a proper ex- ecution of the power granted in the will or not, was admissible to characterize and define the possession subsequently held by the plaintiff. It gave at least color of title, and tended to show that a possession claimed under it was commensurate with the estate which it pur- ported to convey. Dubuque v. Coman, 64 Conn. 475- A Survey and Map never recorded were proper evidence to show the character of defendant's claim of right or title. Sulphur Mines Co. 0. Thompson, 93 Va. 293. 891. 1. Ponder v. Cheeves, 104 Ala. 307; Barron v. Barron, 122 Ala. 194; Miller v. Davis, 106 Mich. 300. S. Declarations Admissible to Show Character of Possession. — Ward v. Cochran, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 127; Pittman v. Pittman, 124 Ala. 306; Roberson v. Downing Co., 120 Ga. 833, 102 Am. St. Rep. 128; Prouty v. Tilden, 164 111. 163; Knight v. Knight, 178 111. 553; Kotz v. Belz, 178 111. 434; Casey v. Casey, 107 Iowa 192, 70 Am. St. Rep. 190; Rand v. Huff, 59 168 Vol. I. A D VERSE POSSESSION— A D VER TISE. $9Q 892. General Reputation. — See notes 1 , 2. ADVERTISE. — See note 3. Kan. 777, 53 Pac. Rep. 483 ; Mann v. Cavanaugh, > no Ky. 776; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283; Swope v. Ward, 185 Mo. 316; Decker v. Decker, 64 Neb. 239 ; Scarboro v. Scarboro, 122 N. Car. 234; Metz v. Metz, 48 S. Car. 472; Murphy v. Dafoe, (S. Dak. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 86 ; Williams v. Rand, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 631 ; Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 470. See also the titles Declarations (in Evidence), 12. 6; Res Gestje, 690. 3. et seq. Sayings of a person in possession of real estate, or some interest therein, ought not to be admitted against another, unless it appears that this other claims through or under him, or stands in privity with him ; these declara- tions not being offered apparently to prove ad- verse possession on the part of the person mak- ing them. When such declarations are offered, it is material to show accurately or approxi- mately when they were made. Whelchel v. Gainesville, etc., Electric R. Co., 116 Ga. 431. Declarations Admissible to Show that Possession Is Not Adverse. — Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499 ; Wade v. Johnson, 94 Ga. 348 ; Mann v. Cavanaugh, no Ky. 776; Walsh v. Wheel- wright, 96 Me. 174; Boynton v. Miller, 144 Mo. 681 ; Waller v. Leonard, 89 Tex. 307. See also Sage v. Rudnick, 67 Minn. 362. Grantor's Declaration Admissible Against Grantee. — Coffrin v. Cole, 67 Vt. 226. 892. 1. Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Cole, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 949 ; Holtzman v. Douglas, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 397 ; Knight v. Knight, 178 111. 553; Whitaker v. Erie Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454; Lusk v. Pelter, 101 Va. 790; McAuliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 141. See also Hasson v. Klee, 168 Pa. St. 510; Ramsay v. Ramsay, 2 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 179. In Tennessee Coal, etc., Co. v. Linn, 123 Ala. 112, 82 Am. St. Rep. 108, the court said: " We understand the rule to be that the existence of a fact cannot be proved by reputation or notoriety, yet where the fact is otherwise es- tablished general notoriety in the neighborhood may be proved, as competent evidence to charge a resident in such vicinity with knowledge of it." 2. Possession Cannot Be Established by Evidence of General Reputation. — Goodson v. Brothers, in Ala. 589; Metz v. Metz, 48 S. Car. 472; Mclnerney v. Beck, 10 Wash. 515. It is notorious occupation which is one of the elements necessary to constitute a title by adverse possession. It is not proved by repu- tation. Notoriety of occupation is not to be in- ferred from notoriety of claim. Carter v. Clark, 92 Me. 225. Payment of Taxes. — Consolidated Ice Co. v. New York, 166 N. Y. 92. See also Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799. Other Evidence. — Where the defendants offered evidence that they had mortgaged the land and insured the improvements thereon in their own name, it was held not competent against the plaintiff to establish an adverse pos- session. Broughan v. Broughan, 10 Kan. App. 575, 61 Pac. Rep. 874. Cutting Timber is admitted as a circumstance to be taken into consideration with other evi- dence in determining the fact and the extent of adverse possession. Chastang v. Chastang, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 799. Sale of Part of Land. — Dowdell v. Orphans' Home Soc, (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 16. 8. Montford v. Allen, in Ga. 18. 169 ADVICE OF COUNSEL. By O. D. Estee. 894. I. Liability of Attorney — 1. To Client — a. For Improper or ERRONEOUS ADVICE — Attorney's Undertaking. — See note I. 895. No Warranty of Correctness of Opinion. — See note I. Where the Advice Is Fraudulent. — See note 3. 3. For Contempt in Giving Improper Advice. — See note 3. II. The Advice a Privileged Communication. — See note 2. III. The Advice as a Defense — 1. To Clients Generally — a. In Actions Generally — violation of Law. — See note 9. 896. 897. 898. note 1. 899. b. CONTEMPT — General Rule — Advice of Counsel No Justification. — See Qualifications. — See note 2. C. PERJURY — Where a Question of Law Is Involved. — See note I. e. False Arrest and Imprisonment. — See note 3. /. Malicious Prosecution — (1) General Rule. — See note 4. 894. 1. Couse v. Horton, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 198; Patterson v. Frazer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1077. Advice as to Title to Real Estate. — Hum- boldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 969; Renkert v. Title Guaranty Trust Co., 102 Mo. App. 267; Byrnes v. Palmer, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; Gardner v. Wood, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 93. Layman Representing Himself to Be a Lawyer. — Where a layman induces another to deal with him by falsely representing that he is a lawyer, he is held to just as strict a liability to the client as if he were in fact an attorney. Miller v. Whelan, 158 111. 544. 895 1. Morrison v. Burnett, 56 111. App. 129 ; Harriman v. Baird, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 518 ; Hill v. Mynatt, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 163. 3. In Young v. Murphy, 120 Wis. 49, a client was advised to convey property to the wife of an attorney to avoid judgment liens being taken thereon. The attorney promised to have the property reconveyed on request, but he failed to keep his promise. The court held that the deed to the attorney's wife should be canceled. 896. 3. Advising Disobedience of Injunction. — Stolts v. Tuska, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 81. 897. 2. Butler v. Fayerweather, (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 458; Renoux v. Geney, (Supm. Ct. App.. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 782; Austin, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Heiser, 6 S. Dak. 429.. But the privilege does not apply to a case where an attorney gives his client advice to aid him in a proposed violation of the law. State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 546. 9. State v. Hunt, 25 R. I. 75, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 897, 898. 898. 1. Rodgers v. Pitt, 89 Fed. Rep. 424, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 898 ; Continental Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Scott, 41 Fla. 421 ; People v. Rice, 144 N. Y. 249. Injunction. — The fact that a party disobeys an injunction under advice of an attorney is no justification, but it may be offered in evi- dence in mitigation of punishment. Stolts v. Tuska, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 81. 2. Rodgers v. Pitt, 89 Fed. Rep. 424, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 898; Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc., R. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 531. 899. 1. Failure to Disclose Material Facts. — In a prosecution for perjury a party cannot avail himself of the plea that he acted under advice of counsel unless he fully and fairly stated all the material facts of the case within his knowledge to his attorney. State v. Allen, 94 Mo. App. 508. 3. Young v. Gormley, 120 Iowa 372; Bur- banks v. Lepovsky, 134 Mich. 384. 4. United States. — Widmeyer v. Felton, 95 Fed. Rep. 926; Staunton v. Goshorn, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 52. Alabama. — O'Neal v. McKinna, 116 Ala. 606. California. — Holliday v. Holliday, 123 Cal. 26; Seabridge v. McAdam, 119 Cal. 460. Illinois. — Abel v. Downey, no 111. App. 343, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 899. Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 57 Kan. 785. Kentucky. — Tandy u. Riley, (Ky. 1904) 80 , S. W. Rep. 776 ; Farmers', etc., Tobacco Ware- house Co. v. Gibbons, 107 Ky. 611; Mesker v. McCourt, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 975- Louisiana. — Sandoz v. Veazie, 106 La. 202. Massachusetts. — Black v. Buckingham, 174 Mass. 102; Connery v. Manning, 163 Mass. 44. Michigan. — Bennett v. Eddy, 1 20 Mich. 300 ; Pawlowski v. Jenks, 115 Mich. 275; Fletcher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Mich. 363. Minnesota. — Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co., 92 Minn. 348 ; Jeremy v. St. Paul Boom Co., 84 Minn. 516. Nebraska. — Gillispie v. Stafford, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1039 ; Jensen v. Halstead, 61 Neb. 249. 170 Vol. I. ADVICE OF COUNSEL. 901-906 901. (2) Disclosure of Facts by Client. — See note 1. 903. See note 1. 903. (3) Requisites as to the Advice Given — The statement that the Plaintiff Was Liable to Prosecution Sufficient. — See note 4. (4) Qualifications of the Attorney. — See note 7. 904. See notes 1, 2, 4. 905. Where the Attorney Is Personally Interested in the Subject-matter. — See note 3. 906. (5) Good Faith of Client in Acting upon Advice. — See notes 1,2, 3. New Jersey. — Magowan v. Rickey, 64 N. J. L. 402. Ohio. — Eihlert v. Gommoll, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 586. Pennsylvania. — Replogle v. Frothingham, 1 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 374. Rhode Island. — Goldstein v. Foulkes, 19 R. I. 291. Texas. — Kleinsmith v. Hamlin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 994. Wisconsin. — Billingsley v. Maas, 93 Wis. 176. Eule Applied to Wrongful Attachments. — Dorr Cattle Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, (Iowa 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 918; Le Clear v. Perkins, 103 Mich. 131. See also Kompass v. Light, 122 Mich. 86. Advice of Counsel in Mitigation of Damages. — Hicks y. Brantley, "102 Ga. 264. Criminal Prosecution. — A party is protected in instituting a criminal proceeding if he makes a full and fair disclosure of the facts to the public prosecuting attorney and honestly acts on his advice. Ambs v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 114 Fed. Rep. 317; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pierce, 98 111. App. 368 ; Fowles v. Hayden, 129 Mich. 586; Warren v. Flood, 72 Mo. App. 199; Hess v. Oregon German Baking Co., 3 1 Oregon 503. Attorney Cannot Invoke Aid of Rule. — An attorney who is a defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution cannot invoke the aid of this rule where he merely relied on his own judgment. Epstein v. Berkowsky, 64 111. App. 498. Cases Holding that Advice of Counsel Negatives Malice.— Johnson v. McDaniel, 5 Ohio Dec. 717. Cases Holding that Advice of Counsel Estab- lishes Probable Cause. — Kansas, etc., Coal Co. v. Galloway, 71 Ark. 351, 100 Am. St. Rep. 79; Ahrens, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hoeher, 106 Ky. 692; Pawlowski v. Jenks, 115 Mich. 275 ; Poupard v. Dumas, 105 Mich. 326; Maynard v. Sigman, 6s Neb. 590 ; Peterson v. Reisdorph, 49 Neb. 529 ; Krause v. Bishop, (S. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 434- Cases Holding that Advice of Counsel Is Evi- dence Both to Establish Probable Cause and to Negative Malice. — Myers v. Litts, 3 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 363- 901. I. California. — Scrivani v. Dondero, 128 Cal. 31; Holliday v. Holliday, 123 Cal. 26; Seabridge v. McAdam, 119 Cal. 460. Colorado. — Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86. Iowa. — Dorr Cattle Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, (Iowa 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 918. Massachusetts. — Black v. Buckingham, 174 Mass. 102; Connery v. Manning, 163 Mass. 44. Missouri. — Butcher v. Hoffman, 99 Mo. App. 239; Warren v. Flood, 72 Mo. App. 199. Nebraska. — Hiersche v. Scott, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 494 ; Rosenblatt v. Rosenberg, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 686. New York. — Davidoff v. Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 456, affirmed (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 31. Ohio. — Broerman v. Ryan, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 15- Pennsylvania. — Myers v. Litts, 3 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 363. South Dakota. — Wuest v. American Tobacco Co., 10 S. Dak. 394. Omission of Material Facts. — Struby-Estabrook Mercantile Co. v. Kyes, 9 Colo. App. 190. Proof Must Show that Counsel Knew All the Facts. — Merchant v. Pielke, 10 N. Dak. 48. Diligence Required. — A party is not required to institute a diligent inquiry to discover facts which would tend to exculpate the accused. Holliday v. Holliday, (Cal. 1898) 53 Pac. Rep. 42; Hess v. Oregon German Baking Co., 31 Oregon 503. Erroneous Statement of Facts. — The advice of counsel is no defense where the defendant erroneously stated to his counsel facts within his knowledge. Lawrence v. Leathers, 31' Ind. App. 414. 902. 1. Daily v. Donath, 100 111. App. 52; Atchison, etc., R. Co>. v. Brown, 57 Kan. 785; Ahrens, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hoeher, 106 Ky. 692 ; Butcher v. Hoffman, 99 Mo. App. 239 ; Rosenblatt v. Rosenberg, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 686 ; Johnson v. McDaniel, 5 Ohio Dec. 717; Humphreys v. Mead, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 415 ; Replogle v. Frothingham, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 374- 903. 4. In Gillispie v. Stafford, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1039, it was held that the attorney should advise his client not only whether the facts disclosed showed probable cause for instituting a criminal prosecution, but also whether sufficient diligence had been used in ascertaining those facts. 7. O'Neal v. McKinna, 116 Ala. 606. 904. 1. Staunton v. Goshorn, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 52 ; Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86 ; Eihlert v. Gommoll, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 586. 2. Atkinson v. Van Cleave, 25 Ind. App. 508, holding evidence that the attorney who was con- sulted had no public sign to be admissible as showing that he did not hold himself out to the public as a lawyer. 4. Necker v. Bates, 118 Iowa 545; Auer v. Mauser, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 618. 905. 3. Adkin v. Pillen, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 176. Question for Jury. — See Merchant v. Pielke, 10 N. Dak. 48- 906. 1. Seabridge v. McAdam, 119 Cal. 171 006-913 ADVICE OF COUNSEL — AFFINITY. Vol. I. 906. (6) Effect of Advice as Evidence — Not a Defense, per Se. — See note 4. 907. A Question of Tact for the Jury. — See notes I, 2, 3. 2. To Trustees — United states. — See note 5. [ADVISABLE. — See note 5«.J ADVISE. — See note 6. 009. AFFECT — AFFECTING. — See note I. AFFIDAVIT. — See note 3. 910. See notes 2, 3. 913. AFFINITY. — See notes I, 2, 3. 913. See note 1. 460 ; Kehl v. Hope Oil Mill, etc., Co., 77 Miss. 762; Hiersche v. Scott, (Neb. 190 1) 95 N. W. Rep. 494; Merchant v. Pielke, 10 N. Dak. 48; Humphreys v. Mead, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 415 ; Replogle v. Frothingham, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 374; Kleinsmith v. Hamlin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 60 S. W. Rep. 994. Client Must Show that He Followed the Advice. — Gruel v. Mengler, 74 111. App. 36. 906. 2. Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86 ; Rosenblatt v. Rosenberg, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 686. Criminal Prosecution to Collect Debt. — Streh- low v. Pettit, 96 Wis. 22. 8. Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86. Advice Not Given in Good Faith. — Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co., 92 Minn. 348. 4. Morrow v. Carnes, 108 111. App. 621 ; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 148 Ind. 578; At- kinson v. Van Cleave, 25 Ind. App. 508 ; Womack v. Fudikar, 47 La. Ann. 33 ; Parr v. Loder, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 218; Smith v. East- ern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 116 N. Car. 73; Thurber v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 116 N. Car. 75; R. F. Scott Grocer Co, v. Kelly, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 136. Where Facts Are Disputed. — Brown v. Mc- Bride, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 235. 907. 1. Butcher v. Hoffman, 99 Mo. App. 239; Gillispie -o. Stafford, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1039; Miles v. Walker, 66 Neb. 728; Bell v. Atlantic City R. Co., 202 Pa. St. 178, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 906, 907. 2. Jensen v. Halstead, 61 Neb. 249 ; Bell v. Atlantic City R. Co., 202 Pa. St. 178, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 906, 907. See also Bennett v. Eddy, 120 Mich. 300. 3. Kehl ;;. Hope Oil Mill, etc., Co., 77 Miss. 762; Bell v. Atlantic City R. Co., 202 Pa. St. 178, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 906, 907; Billingsley v. Maas, 93 Wis. 176. 5. Matter of Ball, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 284, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 907. 5a. In Barrett v. Bloomfield Sav. Inst., 64 N. J. Eq. 441, the court said : " The mean- ing of the word advisable is sufficiently clear and simple. That is advisable which is expedient, prudent, and proper to be done, and therefore proper to be advised to be done. Its synonyms, according to Webster, Worcester, and the Century Dictionary, are ' expedient,' •proper,*' desirable,' 'prudent,' 'wise,' 'best.'" 6. Advise and Instruct. — People v. Daniels, 105 Cal. 262. Legal Adviser. — Under an act providing that it shall be the duty of the city attorney to advise the city in all matters of litigation or legal proceedings, the word advise is used in a broad sense meaning that he shall be the legal adviser in all matters of litigation, and the at- torney cannot recover for services rendered in litigation against the city as extraordinary ser- vices. Ludlow v. Richie, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 199. 909. 1. Real Estate Affected. -Delta County Land, etc., Co. v. Talcott, 17 Colo. App. 316; Goldstein v. Curtis, 65 N. J. Eq. 382. Parties Affected. — Mortgagees who had served notice upon tenants of the mortgagor, in oc- cupation of the mortgaged premises, to pay the rents to them, and to whom such ten- ants had attorned, were, within the meaning of Rule 536, "parties affected" by ex parte orders obtained by a judgment creditor of the mortgagor attaching such rents as debts. Parker v. Mcllwain, 17 Ont. Pr. 84. 3. State v. Headrick, 149 Mo. 403, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 909. 910. 2. Distinguished from Deposition. — Crenshaw v. Miller, m Fed. Rep. 450; In re Liter, 19 Mont. 474. 3. Subscription by Affiant. — Barhydt v. Alex- ander, 59 Mo. App. 188; Lutz v. Kinney, 23 Nev. 279. Jurat of Clerk. — Theobald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 75 HI. App. 208. Petition as Affidavit. — Lawrey v. Sterling, 41 Oregon 518. 912. 1. North Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Cole, 71 Ark. 38, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 912; Holt v. Watson, 71 Ark. 87; State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463; Doyle v. Com., 100 Va. 811, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 911, 912, the whole text para- graph. 2. Between Kinsman of Wife and Kinsman of Husband. — See North Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Cole, 71 Ark. 38, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 912. 3. Wilson v. State, 100 Tenn. 596; String- fellow v. State, 42 Tex. Crira. 592, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 912. Husband of Aunt and Husband of Niece. — State v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463. 91S. 1. Wilson v. State, 100 Tenn. 597, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 913- Birth of Issue. — Stringfellow v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 592, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 913. 173 AFFRAY. 915. I. Definition. — See note i. 916. II. Elements or Offense — Actual Fighting. By Two or More Persons. — See note 5- 917. Mutual Consent. — See note 3. In a Public Place. — See notes 4, 5. 920. AFORETHOUGHT. — See note 2. 931. AFTER.— See note 1. 925. AGAINST. — See note 1. 929. [AGED.— See note 1.] See note 1. 915. 1. At Common Law. — State v. Fritz, 133 N. Car. 725. See also Strutton v. Com., (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 875; Reynolds v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 978. The Word " Affray " as Used in a Manslaughter Instruction does not mean that two persons must engage in a fight on a public road to be guilty of the common-law offense of an affray. If A halts B on a public highway and attempts to draw a gun on him, and B fires four shots at A, after which A fires one at B, it cer- tainly would constitute an affray. Burton v. Com., (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 526; Reynolds v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 978. Appearing in Public Place Armed with Danger- ous Weapons. — State v. Griffin, 125 N. Car. 693- Dueling Is Simply an Aggravated Form of Affray, and under an indictment therefor the party may be convicted of a mutual fighting by consent without deadly weapons. State v. Fritz, 133 N. Car. 725. Statutes Defining Affray — Georgia. — Gamble v. State, 113 Ga. 701. Justification — Self-defense. — Failure to charge on self-defense in a prosecution for an affray is error. Coyle v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 847. 916. 1. Persons Engaged in a Friendly Scuffle are not guilty of an affray. State v. Freeman, 127 N. Car. 544. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show an Affray. — See State v. Glenn, 119 N. Car. 804; Piper v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 11 18. 5. Piper v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 11 18. 917. 3. Mutual Consent of the Parties Neces- sary. — State v. Fritz, 133 N. Car. 725. 4. Public Place. — Piper v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 1 1 18. Compare State v. Griffin, 125 N. Car. 692. In Gamble v. State, 113 Ga. 701, it was held that a fight in the presence of a number of per- sons invited to attend a dance in a private house near a public road, in the absence of evidence to show the distance of the house from the road and whether the fighting could be seen or heard from the road, was not in a place open to the general public so as to constitute it a public place within the meaning of the law of affrays. In State v. Fritz, 133 N. Car. 725, it was held that the presence of seven other persons, at a fight in the nature of a duel, made the place of combat a public place so as to constitute an affray. 5. State v. Fritz, 133 N. Car. 725. 92©. 2. Malice Aforethought.— States. Tate, 156 Mo. 119. See also Hathaway v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 400. 921. 1. Subject to Order in Point of Bight of Enjoyment. — Haug v. Schumacher, 166 N. Y. 506 ; Canfield v. Fallon, ( Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 345. 925. 1. Against the Will. — Gore v. State, 119 Ga. 418. Against Law. — Drexel v. Daniels, 49 Neb. 99. Verdict Against Evidence. (See also Encyc. of Pl. and Pr., titles New Trial; Verdict.) — See Jenkins v. Hankins, 98 Tenn. 545. 929. 1. The word aged, as used in a Texas statute making an assault aggravated when committed by a person of robust health or strength upon one who is aged or decrepit, " means that the party has reached that degree of weakness which characterizes declining years. One might be quite old, and yet not aged, within the meaning of the statute." Black v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 113. As Used in Exemption Statute. — Allen v. Pearce, 10 1 Ga. 316. 173 AGENCY. By E. C. Ellsbree. 938. I. Definitions — 3. Agent. — See note 4. 4. The Power of Authority. — See note 7. 940. III. Competency of Parties — 1. Competency to Be Principal — a. Individuals — (3) Persons Legally Incompetent — (a) infanta — Appointment of Agents. — See note 8. 941. See note 2. 943. (b) Married Women — By Statute. — See note 2. 944. d. Corporations. — See note 8. 946. 2. Competency to Be Agent — b. Various PERSONS — (5) Married Women —(a) As Aga.nt for Her Husband. — See note 4, 947. (6) Husband as Wife's Agent — Appointment. — See note 3. 948. IV. Appointment — 1. Necessity. — See notes i, 3, 4, 5. 0S8. 4. Wynegar v. State, 157 Ind. 577. quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 938 ; International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watson, 158 Ind. 508. 7. Valkenberg v. Treasurer, 14 Hawaii 182, per Perry, J., dissenting, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 938. 940. 8. Burns v. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 181, 94 Am. St. Rep. 268, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 940; Simpson v. Pru- dential Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348, 100 Am. St. Rep. 560, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 940 ; Poston v. Williams, 99 Mo. App. 513- For Necessaries it has been held that an in- fant may bind himself by an agent. Fruchey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88. 941. 2. Rocks v. Cornell, 21 R. I. 532, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 940-941. Appointment Not Prejudicial to Infant. — The appointment of an agent for the purpose of giv- ing notice of the rescission of a contract of in- surance and making a demand is not such an act as can be held, as matter of law, to be prejudicial to an infant, and therefore void, but it is at most only voidable. Simpson v. Pru- dential Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348, 100 Am. St. Rep. 560. 942. 2. Wife May Appoint Attorney in Rela- tion to Her Separate Estate. — Linfon v. National L. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 584, 44 C. C. A. 54; Williams v. Paine, 169 U. S. 55 ; Nigh v. Dovel, 84 111. App. 228; Tompkins v. Triplett, no Ky. 824, 96 Am. St. Rep. 472; Morris v. Linton, 61 Neb. 537. In Regard to Property Not Separately Held a married woman cannot appoint an agent. Macfarland v. Heim, 127 Mo. 327, 48 Am. St. Rep. 629; Spurlock v. Dornan, 182 Mo. 242. Oral Appointment Insufficient. — In Alabama a married woman has been held not to be bound by the acts of an agent orally appointed. Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Zachry, 114 Ala. 177; Tusca- loosa First Nat. Bank v. Leland, 122 Ala. 289. 044< 8, Wwbw of Oprji»r»ti9» M Agent, — m A corporation may contract with directors to act as selling agents, provided this is done openly and with the express or implied assent of all the stockholders. Warren v. Para Rub- ber Shoe Co., 166 Mass. 97. See also the title Officers and Agents of Private Corpora- tions. 946. 4. Agency of Wife for Husband. — Steffens v. Nelson, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 871; Sibley v. Gilmer, 124 N. Car. 635; Presnall v. McLeary, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1066. Measure of Authority. — Whether the wife has power to bind her husband depends, not upon the bare fact of marriage or cohabitation, but upon his authority or assent, either express or implied. If it be express, her power must be measured by the terms employed in conferring it. If it be implied, its extent must be gath- ered from all the circumstances of the case. Jones v. Gutman, 88 Md. 355. 947. 3. Agency of Husband for Wife. — Nigh v. Dovel, 84 111. App. 228 ; Magerstadt v. Schaefer, no 111. App. 166; Saunders v. King, 119 Iowa 291 ; Tompkins v. Triplett, no Ky. 824, 96 Am. St. Rep. 472 ; First Commercial Bank v. Newton, 117 Mich. 433; Stone v. Gil- liam Exch. Bank, 81 Mo. App. 9 ; Greenberg v. Palmieri, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 297. 948. 1. Must Be Appointment by Principal and Acceptance by Agent. — In re Carpenter, 125 Fed. Rep. 831, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 948; Booker v. Booker, 208 111. 529, 100 Am. St. Rep. 250. 3. Agency Must Have Essential Elements of Other Contracts. — In re Carpenter, 123 Fed. Rep. 831, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 948; Walton v. Dore, 113 Iowa 1. 4. Ketchem v. Marsland, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 450, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 948. 6. Wilson v. Vogeler, (Idaho 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 508 ; Kelly v. Tracy, etc., Co., 71 Ohio St. 220. See also Browne v. Gault, 19 Quebec Super. Ct. S*3. h TdejffftJ* OpWfttpr in the employment of % Vol. I. AGENCY. 949-956 949. 2. Requisites — a. WHEN MADE BY NATURAL PERSONS — Intention. See note i. Correspondence as to Sale of Real Estate. — See note 3. One Employed to Receive and Report Bids. — See note 8. 950. Intention to Create Agency. — See notes 2, 3. 951. b. When Made by Corporations — vote of Directors. — See notes 3.4- 953. Implied Appointment. — See note I. 3. Modes — b. EXPRESS — (1) Under Seal— General note 7. 953. 954. 955. See note 1. (2) By Parol — General Rule. — See notes 2, 3. Instances. — See note IO. 956. See notes 2, 3, 4. Rules. — See Seal Regarded as Surplusage. — See note 5. Insertions in Seeds. — See notes 1 , 2. When Conveyances by Agents with Parol Authority Binding as Contracts of Sale. — telegraph company does not become the agent of a party for whom he receives and transmits a message. Berube v. Great N. W. Tel. Co., 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 178. An Unauthorized Real-estate Agent who calls the attention of a purchaser to a piece of prop- erty is not entitled to a commission where the owner of the property is unaware of such agent's intervention. Plummer v. Gillespie, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 243. 949. 1. Intention Implied from Conduct of Principal. — Halladay v. Underwood, 90 111. App. 130. 3. Opie v. Pacific Invest. Co., 26 Wash. 505. See also Riley v. Grant, 16 S. Dak. 553. 8. One Who Merely Solicits Orders for Sales. — Illinois Moulding Co. v. Page, etc., Mfg. Co., 104 111. App. 1. 950. 2. How Established or Disproved. — In re Carpenter, 125 Fed. Rep. 831, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 950 ; Con- nell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230. 3. Presence of Some Elements of Agency — In- tention. — In re Carpenter, 125 Fed. Rep. 831, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 950 ; Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. Holder, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 300. 951. 3. The Directors Must Act as a Board, and not as individuals, though it is not neces- sary that their votes should be formal or that they should be proved by record. Peirce v. Morse-Oliver Bldg. Co., 94 Me. 406. 4. Acts of Corporate Officers. — Smith v. New England Bank, 72 N. H. 4. 952. 1. Municipal Corporations. — The em- ployment of an agent to perform service for a municipal corporation need not necessarily be in writing or by a formal ordinance, by-law, or resolution. Wilt v. Redkey, 29 Ind. App. 199. 7. Common-law Rule — Daniel v. Garner, 7 1 Ark. 484; Hartnett v. Baker, 4 Penn. (Del.) 431 ; Overman v. Atkinson, 102 Ga. 750 ; Wilson v. Wood, 1 Okla. 279 ; Hotchkiss v. Middle- kauf, 96 Va. 649. 953. 5. Nichols v. Haines, 98 Fed. Rep. 692, 39 C. C. A. 23s, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 953 ; Hartnett v. Baker, 4 Penn. (Del.) 431, quoting 1 Am. and Eno. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 933- See also m 954. 1. Insertions in Deeds by Agents With- out Authority under Seal — Authorities Conflicting. — Lund v. Thackeray, (S. Dak. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 856. 2. Lafferty v. Lafferty, 42 W. Va. 783, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 954. 955. 1. Interposition of Equity. — Daniel v. Garner, 71 Ark. 484. 2. Lamar v. Smith, 129 Ala. 418; Marshall v. Rugg, 6 Wyo. 270. 3. Kentucky Gen. Stat., § 20, t. 22, applies to bail bonds taken pursuant to section 82 of the Criminal Code. Com. v. Belt, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 431. In Order to Give a License to Cut Standing Timber an agent need not have written author- ity. Antrim Iron Co. v. Anderson, (Mich. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 319. 10. Agent to Contract for Sale of Lands. — Columbia Land, etc., Co. v. Tinsley, 60 S. W. Rep. 10, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1082, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 955; Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J. Eq. 418; Tyrrell v. O'Connor, 56 N. J. Eq. 448; Smith v. Browne, 132 N. Car. 365; Monfort v. McDonough, 20 Wash. 710; Horr v. Hollis, 20 Wash. 424. Contra, by stat- ute, Thompson v. New South Coal Co., 135 Ala. 630, 93 Am. St. Rep. 49 ; Lambert v. Gerner, 142 Cal. 399 ; Power v. Immigration Land Co., (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 161 ; Cockrell v. Mclntyre, 161 Mo. 59 ; Mine La Motte Lead, etc., Co. v. White, 106 Mo. App. 222; O'Shea v. Rice, 49 Neb'. 893 ; Brandrup v. Britten, 1 1 N. Dak. 376; Hickox v. Bacon, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 847. See further the title Real Estate Brokers. Pennsylvania. — Ott v. Heineman, 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 161. 956. 2. Surety Bond. — In Texas parol au- thority is sufficient to authorize an agent to sign a surety's name to a bond. Bannister v. Wallace, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 452. 8. Bills and Notes. — Phillips v. Sanger Lum- ber Co., 130 Cal. 431. 4. Lease for More than One Year. — Authority to lease lands for a longer period than one year must be in writing. Shea v. Seelig, 89 Mo. App. 146 ; Bourne v. Campbell, 21 R, I. 490. But this rule has been held not to apply in the case pf the general agent pf ft (sprppra^pn whp 936-961 AGENCY. Vol. I. 956. 957. 958. 959. 960. 961. Where Statute Bequires a Writing. — See note 5. c. Implied — (i) From the Relation of the Parties. — See note 5. Wife as Agent of Husband. — See note 7. See notes 1, 2. Husband as Agent of Wife. — See note 3. Other Belations. — See note 5. (2) From Conduct — General Eule — Estoppel — Acquiescence. — See note 5. See notes 1, 2, 4. Single Transaction. — See notes I, 2. may be authorized orally. Donovan v. P. Schoenhofen Brewing Co., 92 Mo. App. 341. 956. 5. Statute Requiring Writing — Execut- ing Verbal Authority in Presence and at Bequest of Principal. — Morton v. Murray, 176 111. 54, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 956. , Contra, Bramel v. Byron, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 6g5. 957. 5. Agency Implied from Relation of Parties. — Keim v. Lindley, (N. J. 1895) 30 Atl. Rep. 1063. Extent of Implied Authority. — Where agency is shown by proof of the relative situation of the parties, the agency is established no further than is necessary for the discharge of the duties ordinarily belonging to it. Wikle v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 116 Ga. 309. 7. Wife as Agent of Husband in Matters Con- cerning Household. — Johnson v. Briscoe, 104 Mo. App. 493 ; Bradt v. Shull, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 347; Haberman v. Gasser, 104 Wis. 98. And see the title Husband and Wife. 958. 1. Wife's Authority by necessity. — Johnson v. Briscoe, 104 Mo. App. 493; Bost- wick v. Brower, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 709. 2. Wife as Agent of Husband in Other Hatters. — Western Union Tel. Co. v. Moseley, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 562 ; National F. Ins. Co. v. Wagley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 819. Question of Fact. — The question of the wife's agency for her husband is in every case one of fact, arising either from his neglect to supply her with necessaries, or^from his authority ex- pressly given or fairly to be inferred from the circumstances. Martin v. Oakes, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 201 ; Wanamaker v. Weaver, 176 N. Y. 75, 98 Am. St. Rep. 621. Agency of Wife Readily Presumed. — An agency or assent may be more readily presumed from the acts and condition of a wife than in ordi- nary cases. Brown v. Woodward, 75 Conn. 254. S. Husband as Agent of Wife. — Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Cal. 559 ; Mickleberry v. O'Neal, 98 Ga. 42 ; Norfolk Nat. Bank v. Nenow, 50 Neb. 429; Harris v. Weir-Shugart Co., 51 Neb. 483; Elliott v. Bodine, 59 N. J. L. 567 ; Bazemore v. Mountain, 121 N. Car. 59; Whitaker v. Lee, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 348 ; Cushman v. Masterson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 1 031; Cooper v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620. See also the title Husband and Wife. The Husband Is the Natural and Presumptive Agent in law of the wife. American Express Co. v. Lankford, 1 Indian Ter. 233, 2 Indian Ter. 18. But evidence that work was being done upon a wife's property by order of the husband and with her knowledge is not suffi- cient to charge her as principal. Snyder v. 176 Sloane, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 543 ; Valentine v. Applebee, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 1. Compare Farley v. Stroeh, 68 Mo. App. 85 ; Whipple v. Webb, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 332; Bankard v. Shaw, 199 Pa. St. 623. When a Husband Has the General Management of his wife's property, and with her knowledge orders lumber which is used in the erection or repair of buildings upon her land, a jury will be justified in finding that the husband acted as her agent. Maxcy Mfg. Co. v. Burnham, 89 Me. 538. In Texas the husband is not, by implication of law, the agent of the wife, nor can she by express power of attorney constitute him her agent to convey her land. Lewis v. Hoeldtke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 309; Chaison v. Beauchamp, 12 Tex. Civ. App. iog. 5. Mere Relationship, — Valentine v. Apple- bee, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 1 ; Snyder v. Sloane, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 543 ; Hickox v. Bacon, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 847. 959. 6. Agency Arising from General Conduct. — Bull v. Duncan, 9 Kan. App. 887, 59 Pac. Rep. 42; Werth v. Ollis, 61 Mo. App. 401; Zinke v. Zinke, 90 Hun (N. Y.) 127; Nutting v. Kings County El. R. Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 72 ; SIoss Iron, etc., Co. v. Jackson Architect- ural Iron Works, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 316; Horowitz v. Hines, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 93 N. Y. Supp. 469 ; Lough v. Davis, 35 Wash. 449. The Selection of the Office of a Notary as the Place of Payment of a hypothecary claim and in- terest does not establish the relation of princi- pal and agent between the notary and the party making the selection. Latulippe v. Grenier, 13 Quebec Super. Ct. 157.. 960. 1. Holding Out One as Agent. — Smith v. Delaware, etc., Tel., etc., Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 770 ; Bisaillon v. Elliott, 13 Quebec Super. Ct. 289. The Test is whether under the circumstances of the case a reasonably prudent man would be justified in believing that one was acting for another. Harbison v. Iliff, 10 Ohio Dec. 58. 2. Estoppel. — Richards v. John Spry Lumber Co., 169 111. 238; Schmidt v. Shaver, 196 111. 108, 89 Am. St. Rep. 250 ; Johnston v. Mil- waukee, etc., Invest. Co., 46 Neb. 480 ; Harri- son Nat. Bank v. Austin, 65 Neb. 632, 101 Am. St. Rep. 639 ; Morris v. Joyce, 63 N. J. Eq. 549. 4. Carrying on Business in Name of Another. — To the same effect as Garner v. A. Fisher Brew- ing Co., 6 Utah 332, stated in the original note, see McKinney v. Stephens, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 125. 961. 1. Agency Implied from Single Trans- action. — Grant v. Humerick, 123 Iowa 571. But see Ravenna Bank v. Dobbins, 96 Mo. App. 693, holding that an isolated act is not proof Vol. I. AGENCY. 963-966 963. 963. 964. 965. 966. Third Person Must Have Belied upon Agency. — See note I. The Authority Will Be Limited. — See note 3. Circumstances Which Justify the Inference of Agency. — See notes 5, 6. See note 2. See notes 1, 3. By the Ratification of Past Acts. — See note 6. Recognition of Agent's Acts. — See note 8. 4. Adoption of the Agent of Another. — See notes 1, 3, of a general agency; Molt v. Baumann, 65 N, Y. App. Div. 445, holding (that evidence that a husband acted as agent for his wife in a trans- action similar to the one before the court is incompetent to prove his agency in the par- ticular transaction in question. 961, 2, Series of Transactions, — St, Louis Southwestern R, Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619; Harrison v. Legore, 109 Iowa 618; Wheeler v. Benton, 67 Minn. 393; Wheeler v. Benton, 71 Minn. 456; Hare v. Bailey, 73 Minn. 409 ; Haubelt v. Rea, etc., Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 673; Standley v. Clay, (Neb, 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 140; Smith v. New Eng- land Bank, 72 N. H. 4 ; Mikles v. Hawkins, 59 N, Y. App. Div. 253 ; National Park Bank v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, (Supm. Ct. App, T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 672, Indorsing Notes. — Best v. Krey, 83 Minn. 32, See also Lytle v. Dothan Bank, 121 Ala. 215, Previous Course of Dealing. — Gambrill v. Brown Hotel Co., 11 Colo. App, 529; Marsh v, French, 82 111. App. 76 ; McCormick Harvesting Mach, Co. v. Lambert, 120 Iowa 181 ; Continental To- bacco Co. v, Campbell, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 125 ; Eisenberg v. Matthews, 84 Minn. 76 ; Bonner v. Lisenby, 86 Mo. App. 666 ; Crosno v. Bowser Milling Co., 106 Mo. App. 236 ; Welch v. Clifton Mfg, Co., 55 S. Car. 568. And this is true without regard to knowledge thereof by the principal. Best v. Krey, 83 Minn. 32. Previous Agency justifies the other party in accepting as true representations express or implied of present agency, but does not supply the place of these when none is given, and the only intimation given is that the act is un- authorized, but may be ratified. Edwards v. Law, (Fla. 1903) 36 So. Rep. 569. 963. 1. Good Faith Required of Third Party. — Gosliner v. Grangers' Bank, 124 Cal. 225; Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. Wengler, 57 111. App. 184; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N, Dak. 35 ; Merchants', etc., Cotton Oil Co. v. Lufkin Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 651. 3. See Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. Berkowitz, 7 Kan. App, 24. 5. Undertaking to Sell Land at Agreed Price, — Where one person undertakes to sell land for another at an agreed price, the relation of principal and agent is established. Fisher v. Seymour, 23 Colo. 542. 6, Giving One Custody of Personalty. — Pitts- burgh Plate Glass Co. v. Kerlin Bros Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 414, 58 C. C. A. 648. And to the same effect as Gibney v. Curtis, 61 Md. 192, stated in the original note, see Sutton v. Baker, 91 Minn. 12. Power to Sell Not Implied. — The mere pos- session of personal property does not generally I Supp. E. of L.— 12 177 authorize an inference of power as agent to sell it and receive the proceeds. Schmidt v. Shaver, 196 111. 108, 89 Am. St. Rep. 250; Rogers v. Dutton, 182 Mass, 187; Peerless Mach. Co. v. Gates, 61 Minn. 124. 963. 2. Putting One in Charge of a Business. — Hutchings v. Adams, 12 Manitoba 118. 964. 1. Giving One Money to Invest or to Pay to Another. — Reformed Presbyterian Church v, Livingston, 210 Pa. St. 336. 8. See Macdonald v, Cool, 134 Cal. 502. 6. Effect of Ratification. - — Grant v. Humerick, J23 Iowa 571 ; Haubelt v. Rea, etc., Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 672 ; Wilber First Nat. Bank v. Ridpath, 47 Neb. 96 ; Harrison Nat. Bank v. Austin, 65 Neb. 632, ioi Am. St. Rep. 639; Osborne v. Gatewood, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 74 S, W. Rep. 73. Substantially Similar Conditions and Circum- stances are, however, necessary to raise an im- plicatign of agency from ratification of past acts. Smith v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 113 Ga. 625. 965. 8. United States. — Gale v. Chase Nat. Bank, 104 Fed. Rep. 214, 43 C. C. A. 496; Sun Printing, etc., Assoc, v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642. Colorado, — Gambrill v. Brown Hotel Co., 1 1 Colo. App. 529. Georgia Strong v. West, no Ga. 382. Iowa. — Wilson v. Fones, 99 Iowa 132, Massachusetts, — Scribner v. Flagg Mfg. Co., 175 Mass. 536, Minnesota, ~ Jackson v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 79 Minn. 49, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Ekcvc. of Law (2d ed.) 965. Nebraska. — Cheshire Provident Inst. v. Van^ degrift, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 615. New York. — Dickinson v . Salmon, (Supm. Ct. App. T,) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 169; Chambers v. Lancaster, 1 6o- N. Y. 342. Pennsylvania. — Culver v. Pocono Spring Water Ice Co., 206 Pa. St. 481. South Dakota. — Iowa Nat. Bank v. Sher- man, (S, Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep.. 12. Texas. — Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Nelson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223 ; Osborne v. Gatewood, (Tex. Civ. App, 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 72. Utah. — Moyle v , Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. Vermont. — John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Barre, etc., Traetion, etc., Co., 76 Vt. 131. Evidence of Recognition. — Circumstances tend- ing to show the exercise of authority on the part of the agent and its recognition on the other's part may be shown, although they may have no direct connection with the issues tried. Lytle v. Dothan Bank, 121 Ala. 215; Birming- ham Mineral R- Co. v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 127 Ala, 137. 966. 1. Where Parties Sign an Application 967-968 AGENCY. Vol. I. IN GENERAL — When Question for Court — When for 967. See notes i, 2. 5. Evidence — a. Jury. — See notes 3, 4. 968. See note 1. Evidence May Be Either Direct or Indirect. — ■ See note 2. 126 Mich. 134; Griffin v. McKnight, 116 Mich. •468. Missouri. — Berkson v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 144 Mo. an. Nebraska. — Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 64s, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967. New Jersey. — Crossley v. Kenny, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 395. New York. — Brand v. Newton, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 550; Franklin Bank Note Co. v. Mackey, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 511 ; Lewis v. Guardian F., etc., Assur. Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 157; Williams v. Brandt, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 607. Oregon. — Long Creek Bldg. Assoc, v. State Ins. Co., 29 Oregon 569; Connell v. McLough- lin, 28 Oregon 230 ; Neppach v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 482. Pennsylvania. — Langenheim v. Anschutz- Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 285 ; Lininger v. Latshaw, 169 Pa. St. 398 ; Hertzler v. Geigley, 196 Pa. St. 419, 79 Am. St. Rep. 724. South Carolina. — Dickert v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Assoc, 52 S. Car. 412, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967. Tennessee.' — Willcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 524, 66 Am. St. Rep. 761, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967. Utah. — McCornick v. Queen of Sheba Gold Min., etc., Co., 23 Utah 71, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967. Washington. — Novelty Mill Co. v. Heinzer- ling, (Wash. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 742. Summary Statement of Rule. — The existence of an agent's authority is a question of fact to be ascertained by the jury, but what the agent may do under the power conferred is a ques- tion of law to be determined by the court. Anderson v. Adams, 43 Oregon 621 ; Neppach v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 482. Evidence Held Insufficient to Establish Agency. — Holman v. Goslin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 93 N. Y. Supp. 126. 968. 1. Evidence Need Not Be Full and Satis- factory. — Whatever evidence has a tendency to prove agency is admissible, even though it be not full and satisfactory, as it is the province of the jury to pass upon it. Dickinson v. Salmon, (Supm. Ct.App.T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 169. All the Evidence Must Be In before the court can decide whether it is sufficient to submit to the jury. Beal v. Adams Express Co., 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 143. For Evidence Held to Be Sufficient to go to the jury, see Griffin "v. McKnight, 116 Mich. 468; Mosby v.' McKee, etc., Commission Co., 91 Mo. App. 500. 2. Evidence of Appointment May Be Either Direct or Indirect — California. — Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros. Co., 114 Cal. 681. Colorado. — Gambrill v. Brown Hotel Co., 11 Colo. App. 529. Delaware. — State v. Foster, 1 Perm. (Del.) 289. for a Loan. — Land Mortg. Invest. Agency Co. u. Presston, 119 Ala. 290; Hamil v. American Free- hold Land Mortg. Co., 127 Ala. 90 ; Goodwynne v. Bellerby, 116 Ga. 901; Johnson v. Shattuck, 67 Ark. 159- . Although there is a contract in evidence by which a borrower formally constitutes another his agent to negotiate a loan, it is nevertheless open to the borrower to show that such agent really acted as the agent of the lender. State v. Bristol Sav. Bank, 108 Ala. 3, 54 Am. St. Rep. 141. * 966. 2. "Where One May Be Agent of Both Parties to Contract. — See Cheney v. Wood- worth, 13 Colo. App. 176; Rosaler v. Mande- ville, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 92 N. Y. Supp. 341. 967. 1. Land Mortg. Invest. Agency Co. v. Preston, 119 Ala. 290, holding that an agent of a borrower who receives the money from the lender acts as the agent of the latter in the transaction of paying it over to his principal ; Thomas v. Arthurs, 8 Kan. App. 126. 2. Strict Proof Required. — Fisher v. Denver Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. '373. 3. When Pacts Undisputed — Agency Question for Court. — Lester v. Snyder, 12 Colo. App. 331 ; Halladay v. Underwood, 90 111. App. 130; Trimble v. Keer-Rountree Mercantile Co., 56 Mo. App. 683 ; Strauss v. American Talcum Co., 63 N. J. L. 613; Leinkauf v. Lombard, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 302 ; Simonds v. Wrightman, 36 Oregon 120, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967 ; Langenheim v. Anschutz- Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 285 ; Willcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 524, 66 Am. St. Rep. 761, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967 ; McCornick v. Queen of Sheba Gold Min., etc., Co., 23 Utah 71, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 967. When Different Conclusions Might Be Drawn from undisputed facts, by impartial minds, it has been held in several cases that the facts should be submitted to the jury. Thomson v. Shelton, 49 Neb. 644 ; Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Fries, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 71 ; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230 ; Reid v. Kellogg, 8 S. Dak. 596 ; Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. 4. When Facts Disputed — Agency Question for Jury — Connecticut. — Irving v. Shethar, 71 Conn. 434. Georgia. — Palmour v. Roper, 119 Ga. 10. Illinois. — Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Ross, 76 111. App. S49 ; Cook v. Smith, 73 111. App. 483 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Elgin Con- densed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619. Iowa. — Jewell v. Posey, 119 Iowa 412; Gough v. Loomis, 123 Iowa 642. Maine. — Cl° ran o. Houlehan, 88 Me. 221. Maryland. — Swindell v. Gilbert, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 102. Massachusetts. — Beston v. Amadon, 172 Mass. 84. Michigan. — Fontaine Crossing, etc., Co. v. Rauch, 117 Mich. 401; McClure v. Murphey, 178 Vol. I. AGENCY. 968-969 968. The Burden of Proof. — See notes 3, 4. 969. Merely Assuming to Act as Agent. — See notes I, 2. Circumstances and Conduct of the Parties. — See note 3. Indiana. — Fruchey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88. Missouri. — Watkins v. Edgar, 77 Mo. App. 148; Bonner v. Lisenby, 86 Mo. App. 666; Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo. App. 384; Crosno v. Bowser Milling Co., 106 Mo. App. 236. New Jersey. — Lindley v. Keira, 54 N. J. Eq. 418. New York. — Nutting v. Kings County El. R. Co., .21 N. Y. App. Div. 72. Ohio. — Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Rish- forth, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 660. Pennsylvania. — Beal v. Adams Express Co., 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 143. 96§. 3. Burden of Proof on Party Affirming Belation — Alabama. — Powell v. Wade, 109 Ala. 95, 55 Am. St. Rep. 915; George v. Ross, 128 Ala. 666. Colorado. — Stuart v. Asher, 15 Colo. App. 4°3- Illinois. — Rice, etc., Malting Co. v. Interna- tional Bank, 185 111. 422, affirming 86 111. App. 136 ; Jahn v. Kelly, 58 111. App. 570. Iowa. — Darr v. Darrow, 120 Iowa 29; Saunders v. King, 119 Iowa 291. Kentucky. — O'Day v. Bennett, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 442. Michigan. — Clark v. Dillman, 108 Mich. 625. New Jersey. — Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Fritz, 61 N. J. L. 211. New York. — Patten v. Climax Quick-Tan- ning Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 607. Oregon. — Sears v. Daly, 43 Oregpn 346. Pennsylvania. — Beal v. Adams Express Co., 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 143 ; Langenheim v. Anschutz- Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 285 ; Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396. Texas. — Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Mach. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. Wisconsin. — Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. Burden to Show Authority. — The burden of proof rests on the party alleging a particular authority to show that fact. Extension Gold Min., etc., Co. v. Skinner, 28 Colo. 237 ; Danzi- ger v. Pittsfield Shoe 1 Co., 204 111. 145 ; Odell Typewriter Co. v. Sears, 86 111. App. 621 ; Wil- cox v. Eadie, 65 Kan. 459 ; Whitaker v. Bal- lard, 178 Mass. 5:84; Knoche v. Whiteman, 86 Mo. App. 568; Langbein v. Tongue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 757; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Hill, (N. Car. 1904) 48 S. E. Rep. 575; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230; Corbet v. Waller, 27 Wash. 242 ; Grafton, etc., R. Co. v. Davisson, 45 W. Va. 12, 72 Am. St. Rep- 799; Ames v. V.J. Murray Mfg. Co., 114 Wis. 85 ; Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. 4. Proof Must Be Clear and Specific. — Booker v. Booker, 208 111. 529, 100 Am. St. Rep. 250; Corey 0. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 968 ; Brown v. Daugherty, 120 Fed. Rep. 526. Agency of Husband for Wife. — It is sufficient to establish a husband's agency for his wife by a preponderance of testimony, except where the husband has contracted in writing and in his own name, when the evidence must be clear and convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Long v. Martin, 71 Mo. App. 569; Farley v. Stroeh, 68 Mo. App. 85. Proof as to Time. — One seeking to prove agency must show that such agency existed at the very time of the transaction in question. Booth v. Newton, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 175. 969. 1. Merely Assuming to Act as Agent Not Sufficient. — Lambert v. Gerner, 142 Cal. 399; Wilson v. Vogeler, (Idaho 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 508 ; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 3 Kan. App. 260 ; Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Butt, 77 Miss. 944, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 969 ; Agricultural Ins. Co. u. Fritz, 61 N. J. L. 211; Leary v. Albany Brewing Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 6 ; Tay- lor v. Commercial Bank, 174 N. Y. 181, 95 Am. St. Rep. 564, reversing 68 N. Y. App. Div. 458 ; Cooper v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620. See also People v. Courson, 87 111. App. 254, hold- ing that evidence of an agent's acts is not ad- missible until his authority has been proved. In MacLatchy v. Hannan, 104 N. Y. App. Div. 70, it was held that an assignment purporting to have been executed by an attorney in fact was not sufficient evidence of the title of the assignee, without proof that the person execut- ing the assignment had authority to do so. Declarations of an agent that he was such agent are admissible, not to prove the fact of agency, but to show that he held himself out as agent. Parker v. Bond, 121 Ala. 529. And what an agent said while professing to act for another is to be regarded as an act rather than a declaration, and is therefore admissible. Dodge v. Weill, 158 N. Y. 346. See also the title Admissions, vol. 1, p. 690 et seq., and mat- ter pertaining thereto in this Supplement. Acts Tending to Show Whom the Person Repre- sented are competent evidence in determining the question of agency. Land Mortg. Invest., etc., Co. v. Gillam, 49 S. Car. 345. 2. White v. German Alliance Ins. Co., 103 Fed. Rep. 260, 43 C. C. A. 216; Donohoe v. Trinity Consol. Gold, etc., Min. Co., 113 Cal. 119; Richardson, etc., Co. v. School Dist. Num- ber Eleven, 45 Neb. 777; C. F. Blanke Tea, etc., Co. v. Rees Printing Co., (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 627; Peche v. Sloane, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 458; Sheetram v. Trexlar Stave, etc., Co., 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 219 ; Hoge v. Turner, 96 Va. 624. A Habit of Performing Certain Acts is not evi- dence of authority so to do where the principal was ignorant of such performance. Goodell v. Sinclair, 112 111. App. 594. A Newspaper Advertisement is inadmissible to prove agency where knowledge of such adver- tisement is not brought home to the principal. Joseph Schlifz Brewing Co. v. Barlow, 107 Iowa 252. 3. Circumstances and Apparent Belations and Conduct of Parties May Be Shown. — Foster v. Murphy, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. .47; Central Coal, etc., Co. v. Niemeyer Lumber Co., 65 Ark. 106; Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros. Co., 114 Cal. 681 ; Beattyville Coal Co. v. Hoskins, (Ky. 179 969-970 AGENCY. Vol. I. 969. Competency of Principal and Agent as Witnesses. — See notes 4, 5. 970. Evidence of General Seputation. — See note I. *. Where the Appointment Is in Writing — Loss of Original Dooument. — See note 3. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 363 ; Swindell v. Gilbert, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 102; Baker v. Tibbetts, 164 Mass. 412; Roberson v. Clevenger, (Mo. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 512; Zinke v. Zinke, 90 Hun (N. Y.) 127 ; Foste v, Standard L., etc., Ins. Co., 34 Oregon 125; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Nelson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223 ; McCor- nick v. Queen of Sheba Gold Min., etc., Co., 23 Utah 71. Illustrations. — A conversation between prin- cipal and agent is admissible as tending to show the character and extent of the agency. Frank v. Levi, no Iowa 267. Although the authority of an agent terminates at the death of his principal, evidence as to the course of dealing between them is competent for the purpose of throwing light on the ques- tion of what authority was given to the agents by the executor. Dexter v. Berge, 76 Minn. 216. Payment of Commissions. —As tending to prove agency evidence that one paid to another com- missions for making a sale is admissible. Slaughter v. Coke County, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 7*9 S. W. Rep. 863. Evidence to Prove Implied Agency. — Greater latitude is allowed in the admission of testimony tending to prove facts and circumstances from which the existence of an agency may legiti- mately be inferred than to prove an express agency. Patterson v. Van Loon, 186 Pa. St. 367- 969. 4. Principal and Agent as Witnesses — United States. — ^Etna Indemnity Co. v. Ladd, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. 636. Alabama. — Parker v. Bond, 121 Ala. 529; Gilliland v. Dunn, 136 Ala. 327. California. — McRae v. Argonaut Land, etc., Co., (Cal. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 743. See also Swinnerton v. Argonaut Land, etc., Co., 112 Cal. 375- Colorado. — Fisher v. Denver Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. 373. Connecticut. — Haywood v. Hamm, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 695. Georgia. — Armour v. Ross, no Ga. 403. Illinois. — Phillips v. Poulter, 1 1 1 111. App. 330 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619. Indian Territory. — American Express Co. v. Lankford, 1 Indian Ter. 233, affirmed on rehear- ing 2 Indian Ter. 1.8, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 969. Iowa. — O'Neill v. Wilcox, 115 Iowa 15; Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Barlow, 107 Iowa 252; O'Leary v. German-American Ins. Co., 100 Iowa 390. Kansas. — Aultman Threshing, etc., Co. v. Knoll, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1074; Jahren v. Palmer, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1081. Missouri. — State v. Henderson, 86 Mo. App. 482; Christian v. Smith, 85 Mo. App. 117; Long v. Martin, 152 Mo. 668; Haubelt v. Rea, etc., Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 672. Montana. — Nyhart v. Pennington, 20 Mont. 158. New Hampshire. — Union Hosiery Co. v. Hodgson, 72 N. H. 427. New York. — Joseph v. Struller, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 173; Brown v. Cone, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 413. See also Snyder v. Sloane, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 543; Stone v. Cronin, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 565. North Carolina. — New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Seago, 128 N. Car. 158. North Dakota. — Reeves v. Bruening, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 241. Pennsylvania. — La wall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662. Texas. — American Telephone, etc., Co. v. Kersh, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 127. Utah. — McCornick v. Queen of Sheba Gold Min., etc., Co., 23 Utah 71, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 969. Washington. — Williams v. Blumenthal, 27 Wash. 24, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc, of Law (2d ed.) 969. West Virginia. — Moundsville, etc., R. Co. -v. Wilson, 52 W. Va. 647, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 969 ; Garber v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 147. Husband and Wife, — The principle of the text operates where the wife acts as agent for the husband, or the husband for the wife. Rob- erts v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 90 Wis. 210. Opinion Evidence. — In an action to charge de- fendant on contract made by a third person as agent, the alleged agent cannot testify that he " had authority " to make the contract, but must state the facts. American Telephone, etc., Co. v. Green, (Ind. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 707. The , Agent Cannot Testify to His Conclusions merely. McCluskey v. Minck, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 565. 5. Admissions. — Kelly v. Shumway, 51 111. App. 634 ; American Express Co. v. Lankford, 2 Indian Ter. 18, citing 1 Am, and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 969 ; Thiry v. Taylor Brew- ing, etc., Co., 37 N. Y. App Div. 391 ; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230. Admissibility of Declarations and Admissions by Agent. — W. K. Niver Coal Co. v. Piedmont, etc., Coal Co., (C. C. A.) 136 Fed. Rep. 179; Fisher v. Southern Loan, etc., Co., (N. Car. 1905) 50 Si E. Rep. 592. 970. 1. Evidence of General Seputation. — St Louis, etc., Packet Co. v. McPeters, 124 Ala. 451 ; Union Trust Co. v. McKeon, 76 Conn. 508 ; McGregor v. Hudson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 30 S. W. Rep. 489; Dyer v. Winston, (Tex. Civ. App, 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 227. Any One Having Personal Knowledge may testify as to the relation of principal and agent. Heusinkveld ■ See note 1. VI. Nature and Extent of Authority — 1. Authority, General and Special — a. Distinction Between General and Special Agencies — General Agent. — See note 2. Special Agent. — See note 3. 98G. Principal Bound According to Extent of Apparent Authority. — See note 3. 987. b. Third Parties Must Ascertain Agent's Authority. — See notes 2, 3, 4. assistance to a servant of the corporation who has been injured outside the line of his duties. Chase v. Swift, 60 Neb. 696, 83 Am. St. Rep. Aid to Trespassers. — It has been held that a railroad conductor has no authority to bind the road by engaging a physician to attend tres- passers on the road. Adams v. Southern R. Co., 125 N. Car. 565. See also Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. Loughridge, 65 Ark. 300 ; Hunt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (Ind. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 195. Where the Principal Ratifies the Employment made in his name, with full knowledge of the fact that it has been so made, he will be liable therefor. Lithgow Mfg. Co. v. Samuel, (Ky. 1903) 71 S. W. Rep. 906. By Express Contract with the General Agent a principal may exempt himself from liability for commissions to subagents. Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Gray, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. .422. 9§5. 1. Liability of Agent to Subagent for Compensaton . — Hanback v. Corrigan, 7 Kan. App. 479; Dulon v. Camp, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 548 ;, Brown v. Barse, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 257. 2. jEtna Indemnity Co. v. Ladd, 135 Fed. Rep. 636, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) g8s ; Birmingham Mineral R. Co. v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 127 Ala. 137; Godshaw v. Struck, 109 Ky. 285 ; Baldwin v. Tucker, 112 Ky . 282 ; Cross v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 585. A General Agent. — Pacific Biscuit Co. v. Dugger, 40 Oregon 302, quoting 1 Am. and Eng, Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 985 ; Langen- heim v. Anschutz-Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. . Ct. 285. See also Conneautsville First Nat. Bank v. Robinson, 105 Iowa 463. General Agent as to Particular Business. — Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337. Territorial Limitation of Authority. — Cross v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 141 Mo. 132. An agent authorized to sell goods to all per- sons wishing to buy within the territory of his operations is a general agent. Potter v. Spring- field Milling Co., 75 Miss. 532. 3. Godshaw v. Struck, 105 Ky. 285 ; Bald- win v. Tucker, 112 Ky. 282 ; Cross v. Atchi- son, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 585; Pacific Bis- cuit Co. v. Dugger, 40 Oregon 302, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 983 ; Langenheim v. Anschutz-Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 28s ; Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615 ; Bryant v. Bank of Commerce, 95 Wis. 476. The Distinction Between a General and a Special Agent. — Robinson v. Mtna. Ins. Co., 128 Ala. '' 477- Presumption. — The fact of agency being proved, the agency is presumed to be general, not in respect to everything, but in respect to the business with which it is concerned. Maher v. Moore, (Del. 1898) 42 Atl. Rep. 721. 9§6. 3. Camp v. Southern Banking, etc., • Co., 97 Ga. 582, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 986 ; Godshaw v. Struck, 109 Ky. 285, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 986. 987. 2. Metzger v. Huntington, 139 Ind. 501 ; Godshaw v. Struck, 109 Ky. 285, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987; Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machinery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661 ; Cobb v. Glenn Boom, etc., Co., (W. Va. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 1005. Duty to Inquire as to Agent's Authority. — Camp v. Southern Banking, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 582, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987, note; Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396, holding that the rule is especially applicable in the first trans- action with an agent. But see Landis v. Shadle, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 505. Especially Is This the Case. — Sioux City Nurs- ery, etc., Co. v. Magnes, 5 Colo. App. 172; Camp v. Southern Banking, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 582, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987, note. Principal Not Liable to One Neglecting Inquiry. — Gregory v. Loose, 19 Wash. 599. No Duty to Inquire When Agent's Power Is Absolute. — Witcher v. McPhee, 16 Colo. App. 298. 3. Saranac v. Groton Bridge, etc., Co., 55 N. Y. App. Div. 134, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987 ; Jones v. Keeler, (Supm. Ct. App. T'.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 221, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987; Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machinery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. See also Gor- ham v. Felker, 102 Ga. 260. 4. England. — Jacobs v. Morris, (1901) 1 Ch. 261, 84 L. T. N. S. 112; Hambro v. Burnand, (1903) 2 K. B. 399, 89 L. T. N. S. 180; Kenny v. Harrington, 31 Nova Scotia 290. Colorado. — Gates Iron Works v. Denver En- gineering Works Co., 17 Colo. App. 15 ; Witcher v. Gibson, 15 Colo. App. 163; Mcintosh-Hunt- ington Co. v. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393 ; Lester v. Snyder, 12 Colo. App. 351. Georgia. — ■ Camp v. Southern Banking, etc., Co., 97 Ga. 582, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987 ; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Felton, no Ga. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987. , Illinois. — Schneider v. Lebanon Dairy, etc., Co., 73 111. App. 612. Indiana. — Lucas v. Rader, 29 Ind. App. 287, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987. Kentucky. — Godshaw v. Struck, 109 Ky. 28s, 183 988 AGENCY. Vol. I. 988. Sower in Writing. — See note I. Public Officers. — See note 2. . John- son, 10 Colo. App. 135 ; Hagerman v. Bates, 24 Colo. 71 ; Witcher v. pibson, 15 Colo. App. 163 ; Wedge Mines Co. v. Denver Nat. Bank, (Colo. App. 1903) 73 Pac- Rep. 873, Georgia. — Milledgeville Water Co. v. Ed- wards, 121 Ga. 555, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 989. See also Atkin- son v. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 146. Illinois. — Dewees v. Osborne, 178 111. 39, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 989 ; Nash v. Classon, 55 111. App. 356 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Elgin Con- densed-Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619; Williams v. Pelley, 96 111. App. 346 ; Schmoldt w.'Langston, 106 111. App. 385 ; Domestic Bldg. Assoc, v. Guadiano, 195 111. 222. Indiana. — - Ellinger v. Rawlings, 12 Ind. App. 336. See also Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Street, 26 Ind. App. 224. Iowa. — Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc op Law (2d ed.) 989; Harrison v. Legore, 109 Iowa 618; Osborne v. Ringland, 122 Iowa 329. Kansas. — Dreyfus u. Goss, 67 Kan. 57. Kentucky. — Cartmel v. Unverzaght, (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 965, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 989 ; Columbia Land, etc., Co. v. Tinsley, 60 S. W. Rep. 10, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1082; Blood 1). Herring, 61 S. W. Rep. 273, 2a Ky. L. Rep. 1725; Tompkins v. Triplett, ito Ky. 824, 96 Am. St. Rep. 472; Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Lingenfelser, 62 S. W. Rep. 499, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 38 ; Continental Tobacco Co. v. Campbell, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 12s. Maine. — Heath v. Stoddard, 91 Me. 499, cit- ing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc op Law (2d ed.) 969 [989]. Massachusetts. — Mt. Morris Bank v. Gorham, 169 Mass. 519; Doyle v. Corey, 170 Mass. 337; Garfield, etc.. Coal Co. v. Roekland-Rockport Lime Co., 184 Mass. 60, 100 Am. St. Rep. 543. Michigan. — Warren v. Hailey, 107 Mich. 120; Baker v. Barnett Produce Co., 113 Mich. 533- Minnesota. — Jackson v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 79 Minn. 49, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 989. Missouri. — May v. Jarvis-Conklin Mortg. Trust Co., 138 Mo. 275, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 985 et sea. [989] ; Butler County v. Boatmen's Bank, 143 Mo. 13; Carthage First Nat. Bank v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 145 Mo. 127; Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co., 94 Mo. App. 94; Rosenbaum v. Gilliam, 101 Mo. App. 126; Haubelt v. Rea, etc., Mill. Co., 77 Mo. App. 672; Phipps v. Mallory Commis- sion Co., 105 Mo. App. 67 ; Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo. App. 384; Miller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 474; WilBon v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 66 Mo. App. 388, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1366. Montana. — ■ Spelman v. Gold Coin Min., etc., Co., 26 Mont. 76, 91 Am. St. Rep. 402. Nebraska. — Brown v. Eno, 48 Neb. 538 ; Creighton v. Finlayson, 46 Neb. 457 ; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Nordstrom, 63 Neb. 123; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Field, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 249 ; Harrison Nat. Bank v. Austin, 6s Neb. 632, iot Am. St. Rep. 639. See also Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 66 Neb. 159. New York. — Leinkauf v. Lombard, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 302, citing 1 Am. and Eng, Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 989; Lowenstein v. Lom- bard, 164 N. Y. 324; Babin ti. Ensley, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 548 ; Ring v. Long Island Real Estate Exch., etc., Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 442. See also Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461. Oregon. — Gardner v. Wiley, (Oregon 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 341. Pennsylvania. — National Bank v. Friden- berg, 206 Pa. St. 243 ; Himes v. Herr, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 124; Fees v. Shadel, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 193; Grasselli Chemical Co. v. Biddle Pur- chasing Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 426 ; Laucr Brew- ing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396 ; Ruane v. Murray, 26 Pa. Super, Ct. 187; Phil- lips v. International Text-Book Co., 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 230. South Carolina. — Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank ■ti. Clifton Mfg. Co., 56 S. Car. 320. Tennessee. — Nunnelly v . Goodwin, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 855. Texas. — ■ Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Davis, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 508, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 989 ; Schleicher v. Armstrong, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 327 ; Dabney v. MeFarlin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 142; Greet v. Marble Falls First Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 1045 ; Insurance Co. of North America v. Bell, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 129 ; Clark- son v. Reinhartz, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 1 1 1 ; Osborne v. Gatewood, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 72; Bay City Irri- gation Co. v. Sweeney, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 545. See also Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 8; Gulf, etc., Co. v. Irvine, (Test. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep ; S40; Pacific Express Co. v. Needham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 22; Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machinery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. Utah. — Nichols v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 24 Utah 83, 91 Am. St. Rep. 778. Washington. — Gregory v. Loose, 19 Wash. 599, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 988, 989. West Virginia. — Rohrbough v. U. S. Ex- 185 990 AGENCY. Vol. I. 990. Theory upon Which the Principal Is Held Liable. — See note I. (2) General Agencies — Authority Not Unlimited. — See note 2. press Co., so W. Va. 148, 88 Am. St. Rep. 84.9. quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 989. Apparent Authority Renders Principal Liable to Third Persons. — Union Trust Co. v. McKeon, 76 Conn. 508 ; Heath v. Stoddard, 91 Me. 499- Party Not Relying on Agent's Ostensible Au- thority. — Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 477; Rodgers v. Peckham, 120 Cal. 238; Jackson Taper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 151, 93 Am. St. Rep. 113, reversing 99 111. App. 108; Hastings First Nat. Bank v. Farm- ers', etc., Bank, 56 Neb. 149. Appearance of Authority Caused by Agent Only. — Robinson v. Nipp, 20 Ind. App. 156; Curl v. Bond, 52 La. Ann. 1052; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Jackson Jr. Zinc Co., 98 Mo. App. 324; Figueira v. Lerner, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 216; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5. How Apparent Authority Determined. — John- ston v. Milwaukee, etc., Invest. Co., 46 Neb. 480 ; Holt v. Schneider, 57 Neb. 523 ; Reid v. Kellogg, 8 S. Dak. 596. The apparent authority of an agent for which his principal is liable must be such as a per- son of ordinary caution and prudence in busi- ness would be warranted in believing to exist. Welch v. Clifton Mfg. Co., 55 S. Car. 568. Apparent Authority Defined. — Ostensible au- thority is such as a principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess. Thomson v. Shelton, 49 Neb. 644; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Walter, 51 Neb. 182; Holt v. Schneider, 57 Neb. 523 ; Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Henry, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 169; Faulkner v. Simms, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 171; Har- rison Nat. Bank o. Williams, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 245 ; C. F. Blanke Tea, etc., Co. v. Trade Exhibit Co., (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 714- Agents of Private Corporations. — The rule of the text applies to corporations as well as to individuals. Bullen v. Milwaukee Trading Co., 109 Wis. 41. It Is Presumed that an agent empowered to act at the beginning of a transaction is authorized until the termination of the matter. Parker v. Crilly, 113 111. App. 309. An agent in charge of cattle for the purpose of seeing that they were properly at the place of shipment is not presumed to have authority to make a contract for such shipment where the principal has already made a contract for that purpose. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Watson, (Kan. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 499. Good Faith Required of Third Party. — One hav- ing actual or constructive knowledge that an agent is exceeding his authority cannot hold the principal. United States. — National Bank v. Munger, 95 Fed. Rep. 87, 36 C. C. A. 659 ; Colorado Springs Co. v. American Pub. Co., (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 843. California. — Gosliner v. Grangers' Bank, 124 Cal. 225. Delaware. — Maher v. Moore, (Del. 1898) 42 Atl, Rep. 721. Iowa. — German Sav. Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 122 Iowa 737. Kansas. — Hier v. Miller, 68 Kan. 258 ; Trus- tees', etc., Ins. Corp. v. Bowling, 2 Kan. App. 770. Kentucky. — Russell v. Cox, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep; 1087 ; A McCarty v. Stanfill, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 278; Charles Brown Grocery Co. v. Beckett, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 458. Michigan. — Clark v. Haupt, 109 Mich. 212. Missouri. — White v. Massey, 65 Mo. App. 260 ; Carter v. Mtna Loan Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 355 ; Carson v. Culver, 78 Mo. App. 597. New York. — Waldorf v. Simpson, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 297 ; Sage v. Shepard, etc., Lumber Co., 4 N. Y. App. Div. 290 ; Leinkauf v. Lom- bard, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 302; Lowenstein v. Lombard, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 408; Eldridge v. Husted, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 177; Burlingame v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 358. Utah. — Nephi First Nat. Bank v. Foote, 12 Utah 157. Essential Elements of Apparent Authority. — Before the application of this rule of law can be invoked, two important facts must be clearly established : First, the principal must have held the agent out to the public as pos- sessing sufficient authority to" embrace the par- ticular act in question, or knowingly acquiesced in the agent's assertion of the requisite author- ity ; and second, the party dealing with such agent must have had reason to believe, and must have believed, that the agent possessed the necessary authority. Connell v. McLough- lin, 28 Oregon 230; Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Oregon 150. Principal Must Have Knowledge of Acts. — To make out a case of implied authority in an agent to do acts beyond and in violation of his express authority, notice to the principal must be shown. Jackson v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 79 Minn. 43. 990. 1. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 541, per Hawley, J., dissenting, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990; Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 477, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990; German-Ameri- can Bldg. Assoc, v. Droge, (Ind. App. 1895) 41 N. E. Rep. 397 ; Davies v. Eastern Steam- boat Co., 94 Me. 379, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990 ; Dawson v. Wombles, (Mo. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 271; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230. 3. Gates Iron Works v. Denver Engineering Works Co., 17 Colo. App. 15 ; Davies v. East- ern Steamboat Co., 94 Me. 379, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990 ; Cowan v. Sargent Mfg. Co., (Mich. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 377, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990 ; Cosh-Murray Co. v. Adair, 9 Wash. 686. See also Manufacturer's Ace. . Ins. Co. v. Pudsey, 27 Can. Sup. Ct. 374, affirm- ing 29 Nova Scotia 124. Powers of General Agent Are Restricted. — An agent of a corporation can have no appar- ent authority to transact business which the 186 Vol. I. AGENCY. 991-993 991. See note I. 993. Principal Bound if Such Agent Acts Within General Authority. — See note I. 993. (3) Special Agencies — Authority Must Be Strictly Pursued. — See note I. corporation itself by its charter is not author- ized to transact. Leary v. Albany Brewing Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 6. A General Agent in a Particular Branch of his principal's business has no implied authority in any other branch. Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396. Cannot Grant Interest in Principal's Business. — A general agent is not clothed, by virtue of his agency, with power to contract with an employee for an interest in his principal's busi- ness, or an interest in the profits thereof. Def- fenbaugh v. Jackson Paper Mfg. Co., 120 Mich. 242. See also Gore v. Canada L. Assur. Co., 119 Mich. 136. Submission to Arbitration. — A general agent has no authority to bind his principal to a sub- mission to arbitration. To be binding ' such reference can be made only under a special authority. Macdonald v. Bond, 195 111. 122, affirming 96 111. App. 116. 991. 1. Richardson, etc., Co. v. School Dist. Number Eleven, 45 Neb. 777 ; Spies v. Stein, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 752 ; Timp- son v. Allen, 149 N. Y. 513; Richards v. Nova Scotia Bank, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 381. See also Burke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 114 Mich. 685; Maxsoni v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 218; Cowan v. Sargent Mfg. Co., (Mich. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 377, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990, 991 ; Olson u. Great Northern R. Co.,' 81 Minn. 402 ; Patterson v. Consolidated Traction Co., 9 Pa. Dist. 362 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549 ; Quale v. Hazel, (S. Dak. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 215. Act Must Be Within Power to Bind Principal. — Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Crews, 53 ifl. App. 50 ; Heath v. New Bedford Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 184 Mass. 481 ; Foley v. Boulware, 86 Mo. App. 674 ; Maass v. Jarvis, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 687; Moyle v. Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. No Authority to Bind Principal for Debt of Another. — Pacific Lumber Co. v. Moffat, (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 836. In this case the de- fendant's agent contracted in the defendant's name for the purchase of a large quantity of lumber from the plaintiff at a price exceeding the market rates in order to make up the amount lost by the plaintiff in consequence of previous sales to an insolvent. It was held that the defendant was not liable on the con- tract. Apparent Authority — Estoppel. — Clark v. Dillman, 108 Mich. 625. Agent Acting for Himself. — It is against the general law of reason that an agent should be intrusted with power to act for his principal and for himself at the same time. National Bank v. Munger, 95 Fed. Rep. 87, 36 C. C. A. 659 ; Park Hotel Co. v. St. Louis Fourth Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 742; German Sav. Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 122 Iowa 737 ; Hier v. Miller, 68 Kan. 258 ; New York Nat. Banking Assoc. Bank v. American Dock, etc., Co., 143 N. Y. 564; Sage v. Shepard, etc., Lumber Co., 4 N. Y. App. Div. 290. 992. 1. England. — Brocklesby v. Temper- ance Permanent Bldg. Soc, (1895) A. C. 173, 11 Reports 159. . United States. — Gowen v. Bush, 76 Fed. Rep. 349, 40 U. S. App. 349. Alabama. — Robinson v. ^5itna Ins. Co., 128 Ala. 477 ; A. G. Rhodes Furniture Co. v. Wee- den, 108 Ala. 252. Illinois. — St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619; Gray v. Merchant's Ins. Co., 113 111. App. 537. Indiana. — American Quarries Co. v. Lay, (Ind. App. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 608. Iowa. — Conneautsville First Nat. Bank v. Robinson, 105 Iowa 463. Kansas. — Loomis Milling Co. v. Vawter, 8 Kan. App. 437. Kentucky. — Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Ebert, (Ky. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 865; Forked Deer Pants G>. v. Shipley, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 476. Minnesota. — Baker v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 91 Minn. 118. Mississippi. — Potter v. Springfield Milling Co., 75 Miss. 532. Missouri. — Porter v. Woods, 138 Mo. 539; Southwest Missouri Electric R. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Mo. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 966. Nebraska. — Hall v. Hopper, 64 Neb. 633 ; Fidelity Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Lowe, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 749 ; Day, etc., Lumber Co. v. Bixby, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 688. New Hampshire. — Flint v. Boston, etc., R. Co., (N. H. 1905) 59 Atl. Rep. 938. New York. — Lowenstein o. Lombard, 164 N. Y. 324. Pennsylvania. — Beal v. Adams Express Co., 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 143; Grasselli Chemical Co. v. Biddle Purchasing Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 426 ; Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396. Texas. — Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machin- ery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. Utah. — Smith v. Dronbay, 20 Utah 443. Wisconsin. — McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64. How Far Third Persons Must Inquire as to Agent's Authority. — Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 97 Fed. Rep. 181, 38 C. C. A. 108; Lytle v. Dothan Bank, 121 Ala. 215; Indian River State Bank v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 228 ; Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85. Mistake of Agent with Discretionary Powers. — Blumenthal v. Shaw, 77 Fed. Rep. 954, 39 U. S. App. 490. Illustrations — Principal Bound. — A general agent having power to enter into a contract may change or waive its terms. Peterson v. Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Mach. Co., 97 Iowa 148, 59 Am. St. Rep. 399 ; Blaess v. Nichols, etc., Co., 11? Iowa 373; Van Sant- voord v. Smith, 79 Minn. 316. A general agent has authority to enter a pay- ment made to him on a mortgage executed to his principal. Long v. Jennings, 137 Ala. 190. 993. 1. England. — Forman v. The Ship 1S7 994 AGENCY. Vol. I. 994. Inquiry as to the Extent of Authority. — See note I . d. Authority Modified by Instructions — (i). General Agents — Instructions Not Known to Third Parties. — See note 2. Authority to a Baggage Agent of a connecting road to check baggage carries no authority to check merchandise as baggage. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Bowler, etc., Co., 63 Ohio St. 274. Authority to Do an Aot Subject to Approval of the principal confers no authority to dis- pense with such approval. Chauche v. Pare, 75 Fed. Rep. 283, 44 U. S. App. 544. 994. 1. Arkansas. — Schenck v. Griffith, (Ark. 190s) 86 S. W. Rep. 850. Georgia. — Littleton v. Loan, etc., Assoc, 97 Ga. 172; Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Thompson, 106 Ga. 480; Harris Loan Co. v. Elliott, etc., Book-Typewriter Co., no Ga. 302; Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624; Inman v. Craw- ford, 116 Ga. 63. Illinois. — Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Com- mercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 151, 93 Am. St. Rep. 1 13, reversing 99 111. App. 108; Young v. Harbor Point Club House Assoc, 99 111. App. 290. Indiana. — Hunt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (Ind. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 195. Iowa. — Wolf v. Davenport, etc., R. Co., 93 Iowa 218. Maryland. — Hardwick v. Kirwan, 91 Md. 285. New York. — Joseph v. Struller, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 173; Beck v. Dono- hue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 230. North Carolina. — Ferguson v. Davis, etc., Mfg. Co., 118 N. Car. 946; West-End Hotel, etc., Co. v. Crawford, 120 N. Car. 347. Pennsylvania. — MacDonald v. O'Neil, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 364. South Dakota. — J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Eichinger, 15 S. Dak. 530. Texas. — Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machin- ery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. West Virginia. — Findley v. Cunningham, 53 W. Va. 1. 2. England. — Rimmer v. Webster, (1902) 2 Ch. 163, 86 L. T. N. S. 491. United States. — Mtia Indemnity Co. tf. Ladd, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. 636. Alabama. — Phillips, etc, Mfg. Co. V . Whit- ney, 109 Ala. 645 ; Robinson v. Mtna. Ins. Co., 128 Ala. 477. California. — Mitrovich v. Fresno Fruit- Packing Co., 123 Cal. 379. Georgia. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tift, 100 Ga. 86; Armour v. Ross, no Ga. 403. Illinois. — Catholic Bishop v. Troup, 61 111. App. 641 ; Swisher v. Palmer, 106 111. App. 432. Indiana. — American Telephone, etc., Co. v. Green, (Ind. 1905) 73 .N. E. Rep. 707. Iowa. — Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337 ; Getchell, etc., Lumber, etc, Co. v. Peter- Son, 124 Iowa 599. Kansas. — Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Fribley Hardware, etc., Co., 67 Kan. 710; Aultman Threshing, etc., Co. v. Knoll, (Kan. 190s) 79 Pac. Rep. 1074. Kentucky. — H. Herman Sawmill Co. V. Bailey, 58 S. W. Rep. 449, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 552. Louisiana. • — Chaffe v. Barataria Canning Co., 113 La. 215. Liddesdale, (1900) A. C. 190, 82 L. T. N. S. 331 ; Macnutt v. Shaffner, 34 Nova Scotia 402; Starr v. Royal Electric Co., 33 Nova Scotia 156. Canada. — Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Margeson, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 601 ; Atlas Assur. Co. v. Brownell, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 537 ; Garneau v. North American Transp. Co., 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 77 ; Murray v. Jenkins, 28 Can. Sup. Ct. 565 ; Torrop v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 26 Can. Sup, Ct. 585 ; Becherer v. Asher, 23 Ont. App. 202. United States. — Forrest v. Vanderbilt, 107 Fed. Rep. 734, 46 C. C. A. 611. Alabama. — Moore v. Ensley, 112 Ala. 228. Calif ornia. — See Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588. Colorado. — Mcintosh- Huntington Co. v. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393. Connecticut. — See Harris v. Fitzgerald, 75 Conn. 72; Haywood v. Hamm, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 695. / Georgia. — Phcenix Ins. Co. 0. Gray, 107 Ga. no; Lewis v. Equitable Mortg. Co., 94 Ga. 572; Larned v. Wentworth, 114 Ga. 208. Illinois. — American Telephone, etc., Co. v. Jones, 78 111. App. 372 ; Young v. Harbor Point Club House Assoc, 99 111. App. 290. Indiana. — - Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 225. Kentucky. — Dugan v. Champion Coal, etc., Co., 105 Ky. 821. See also Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Spotswood, 74 S. W. Rep. 235, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2430. Massachusetts. — Brown v. Henry, 172 Mass. 559; Heath v. New Bedford Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 184 Mass. 481. Nebraska. — Norfolk Nat. Bank v. Nenow, 50 Neb. 429 ; Lederer v. Union Sav. Bank, 52 Neb. 133. New Hampshire. — Bohanan v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 N. H. 526 ; Union Hosiery Co. -0. Hodgson, 72 N. H. 427. New York. — McGowan v. Treacy, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 497. Pennsylvania. — Pennsylvania L. Ins Co. v. Franklin F. Ins. Co., 181 Pa. St. 40 ; Getty v. Pennsylvania Blind Inst., 194 Pa. St. 571 ; Mundis v. Emig, 171 Pa. St. 417; Langenheim ■0. Anschutz-Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 285; MacDonald v. O'Neil, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 364. See also Smith v. Crum Lynne Iron, etc., Co., 208 Pa. St. 462. Tennessee. — • Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899. Texas. — Mann v. Dublin Cotton Oil Co., 92 Tex. 377 ; Baker v. Kellett-Chatham Machinery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1 905) 84 S. W. Rep. 661. Washington. ~- Gregory v. Loose, 19 Wash. 599. West Virginia. — Fishburne v. Engledove, 91 Va. 548. Wisconsin. — Bryant v. Bank of Commerce, 95 Wis. 476, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 993 ; Godfrey v. Schneck, 105 Wis. 568 ; Hoyer v. Ludington, 100 Wis. 441. A Looal Freight Agent. — Page v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7 S. Dak. 297. iSS Vol. I. AGENCY. 995-997 995. Instructions Known to Third Parties. — See note I. (2) Special Agents — Instructions Contravening Apparent Authority. — See note 2. 996. e. Authority as Affected by Usage or Custom. — See note 2. 997. See note 1. 2. Powers Prima Facie Incident to Every Authority. — See note 3. Maine. — Wood v. Finson, 89 Me. 459. Michigan. — Antrim Iron Co. v. Anderson, (Mich. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 319. Minnesota. — Watts v. Howard, 70 Minn. 122; Van Santvoord v. Smith, 79 Minn. 316. Missouri. — Cross v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 585; Cross v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 141 Mo. 132. Npuo York. — Waldron v. Fargo, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 18 ; Newman v. Lee, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 116; Graves v. Miami Steamship Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 64s; Smith v. Robinson Bros. Lumber Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.) 148. Oregon. — Pacific Biscuit Co. v. Dugger, 40 Oregon 302. Pennsylvania. — Langenheim v. Anschutz- Bradberry Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 285 ; Rice v. Jackson, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 15, 3 Pa. Dist. 829; Landis v. Shadle, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 505 ; Ander- son v. National Surety Co., 196 Pa. St. 288. South Carolina. — Whaley v. Duncan, 47 S. Car. 139; Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank v. Clif- ton Mfg. Co., 56 S. Car. 320. Texas. — Conn v. Hagan, 93 Tex. 334 ; Clarkson v. Reinhartz, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. in; Eastern Mfg. Co. v. Brenk, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 97 ; Bay City Irrigation Co. v. Sweeney, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 545- Washington. — Graton, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Redelsheimer, 28 Wash. 370. West Virginia. — Rohrbough v. U. S. Ex- press Co., 50 W. Va. 148, 88 Am. St. Rep. 849, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 994- Wisconsin. — Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. Evidence of Instructions. — Wellington First Nat. Bank v. Mansfield Sav. Bank, 3 Ohio Dec. 141. Evidence of Private Instructions not communi- cated or known to the third party is inadmis- sible so far as such instructions are incon- sistent with the agent's apparent general authority. Higman v. Camody, 112 Ala. 267, 57 Am. St. Rep. 33; Hichhorn v. Bradley, 117 Iowa 130; Continental Tobacco Co. v. Camp- bell, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 125; Sanford v. Orient Ins. Co., 174 Mass. 416; Meinhold v. Bradley Salt Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 608. 995. 1. Instructions of Which Third Parties Are Aware. — Spooner V. Browning, (1898) 1 Q. B. 528, 78 L. T. N. S. 98; Modern Wood- men of America v. Tevis, 117 Fed. Rep. 369, 54 C. C. A. 293 ; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Felton, no Ga. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 99s; Forked Deer Pants Co. v. Shipley, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 476 ; Murphy v. Royal Ins. Co., 52 La. Ann, 775 ; Antrim Iron Co. v. Anderson, (Mich. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 319; Thrall v: Wilson, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 376 ; Landis v. Shadle, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 505 ; Brown v. West, 69 Vt. 440. 9: Secret Instructions to Special Agents. — Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 119 Ga. 124; Cross v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. App. Rep. 424; Kampman v. Nicewaner, 60 Neb. 208, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 995 ; Smith v. Robinson Bros. Lumber Co., 88 Hun (N. Y.) 148. 996. 2. Usage and Custom. — Hartford, etc., Transp. Co. v. Plymer, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed, Rep. 624, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 996; Mallory Commission Co. v. Elwood, 120 Iowa 632; American Min., etc., Co. v. Converse, 175 Mass. 449; Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430; Mabray v. Kelly-Good- fellow Shoe Co., 73 Mo. App. 1 ; Lowenstein v. Lombard, 164 N. Y. 324; Durkee v. Carr, 38 •Oregon 189; Lauer Brewing Co. v. Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396 ; Ames v. D.- J. Murray Mfg. Co., 114 Wis. 85. See also the title Usages and Customs. May Employ Means Justified by Usage, Rohrbough v. U. S. Express Co., 50 W. Va. 148, 88 Am. St. Rep. 849; Westurn v. Page, 94 Wis. 25 1 ; Waupaca Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 112 Wis, 469. Usage Binds Principal Although Not Known tp Him. — Taylor v. Bailey, 169 111. 181; Reese v. Bates, 94 Va. 321. Whatever may be the rule as to presumptive notice of a custom or usage in the case of parties engaged in the same business, no such presumption can be indulged in where the party to be charged is engaged in a separate line of business. Great Western Elevator Co. v. White, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 406. But see Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430 ; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5. Custom Cannot Alter Business. — It is only the mode of transacting the business which can be affected by usage. No man can be compelled by custom to alter the character of his business. Gates Iron Works v. Denver Engineering Works Co., 17 Colo. App. 15. Question for Jury. — The question what is usual or suitable is for the jury. Hartford, etc., Transp. Co. v. Plymer, (C. C. A.) 120 ' Fed. Rep. 624. 997. 1. Taylor v. Bailey, 169 111. 181; White v. San Antonio Waterworks Co., 9 Tex. Civ. App. 46s ; Reese v. Bates, 94 Va. 321. Compare San Antonio Waterworks Co. v. White, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 181. Mere Conflict in the Evidence will not justify its exclusion. Hichhorn v. Bradley, 117 Iowa 130. 3, United States. — National Bank of Re- public v. Old Town Bank, 112 Fed. Rep. 726, 50 C. C. A. 443 ; Ladd v. Mtna, Indemnity j8 9 998-1001 AGENCY. Vol. I. 998 See note i 3. Construction of Authority — a. Written Authorities — Qmb- tion for Court. — ■ See note 2. 999. The Object of the Power. — See note I. Subject to Strict Interpretation. — See note 2. 1000. Bestricted to Individual Business and Use of Principal. — See note I. General Words. — See note 2. 1001. Parol Evidence. — See note I. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 298; ^Etna Indemnity Co. u. Ladd, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. 636. Alabama. — Lytle v. Dothan Bank, 121 Ala. 215; La Fayette R. Co. v. Tucker, 124 Ala. 514- Colorado. — Fisk Min., etc., Co. v. Reed, (Colo. 1893) 77 Pac. Rep. 240. Georgia. — Strong v. West, no Ga. 382. Iowa. — Blaess v. Nichols, etc., Co., 115 Iowa 373; Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337 ; Nebraska Bridge Tie Co. v. Owen Conway & Sons, (Iowa 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 122. Minnesota. — Watts v. Howard, 70 Minn. 122; Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430. Mississippi. — Potter v. Springfield Milling Co.,' 75 Miss. 532. Missouri. — Rider v. Kirk, 82 Mo. App. 120. Nebraska. — Jones v. Wattles, 66 Neb. 533. North Carolina. — Daniel v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 136 N. Car. 517. Oregon. — Durkee -u. Carr, 38 Oregon 189, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 997 ; Connell v. McLoughlin. 28 Oregon 230 ; Neppach v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 482. Pennsylvania. — Lauer Brewing Co. v. ■ Schmidt, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 396. . South Dakota. — Davis v. Matthews, 8 S. Dak. 300. Texas. — Halff v. O'Connor, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 191 ; Hanrick v. Gurley, 93 Tex. 4^8, modified 93 Tex. 479. Utah. — Genter v. Conglomerate Min. Co., 23 Utah 165, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Lvw (2d ed.) 997. Wisconsin. — McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64; Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. Illustrations of Powers Necessarily Implied. — An agent to whom goods are consigned has im- plied authority to borrow money to pay the transportation charges, if, without so doing, he cannot get possession of the goods. Rankin v. McFarlane Carriage Co., 75 S. W. Rep. 221, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 258. Authority to build a house implies authority to buy the lumber. John Spry Lumber Co. v. McMillan, 77 111. App. 280. An agent of a creditor to procure a transfer ' of the books and accounts of the debtor is authorized to enter into an agreement estab- lishing a consideration upon which such trans- fer shall be based. Martin v. Rotan Grocery Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 212, 95 Tex. 437. 99§. 1. Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 119 Ga. 124; Watts v. Howard, 70 Minn. 122. 2. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. Flinn, 184 III. 123; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Foulks, 191 111. 57 ; De Reiner v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 410 , Williamson v. North Pac. Lumber Co., 38 Ore- gon 560, rehearing denied 38 Oregon 567. A Letter by the Principal to His Agent. — Farrell v. Edwards, 8 S. Dak. 425. A Letter of Authority to an agent is properly admitted in evidence to show the scope of his authority. Bell v. Rankin, 1 Kan. App. 209. 999. 1. Leavenworth First Nat. Bank v. Wright, 104 Mo. App. 242. Intention of Parties. — White v. Furgeson, 29 Ind. App. 144; Muth v. Goddard, 28 Mont. 237, g8 Am. St. Rep. 553 ; Security Sav. Bank v. Smith, 38 Oregon 72, 84 Am. St. Rep. 756; Wynne v. Parke, 89 Tex. 413. 2. Henry v. Lane, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 243 ; Golinsky v. Allison, 1 14 Cal. 458 ; Born v. Simmons, in Ga. 869 ; White v. Furgeson, 29 Ind. App. 144; Security Sav. Bank v. Smith, 38 Oregon 72, 84 Am. St. Rep. 756 ; Union Trust Co. v. Means, 201 Pa. St 374 ; Mac- Donald v. O'Neil, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 364; Stokes v. Dewees, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 471 ; Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262 ; Wynne v. Parke, 89 Tex. 413; Hotchkiss v. Middlekauf, 96 Va. 649 ; Minnesota Stoneware Co. -u. McCrossen, no Wis. 316, 84 Am. St. Rep. 927. Construction Must Not Defeat Intention. — Muth v. Goddard, 28 Mont. 237, 98 Am. St. Rep. 553 ; Smith v. Cantrel, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1081 ; Texas Loan Agency v. Miller, 94 Tex. 464. An Informal Instrument, such as a letter of advice or instruction, conferring an express authority, is construed with more liberality than a formal and deliberate instrument. Halff v. O'Connor, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 191. 1000. 1. See Muth v. Goddard, 28 Mont. 237, 98 Am. St.' Rep. 553. 2. St. Augustine First Nat. Bank v. Kirkby, 43 Fla. 376, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1000; Born v. Simmons, in Ga. 869. See also Welch v. McKenzie, 66 Ark. 251 (as to relinquishment of dower) ~ Mitchell v. McLaren, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 269. Illustrations — General Powers Construed with Reference to Subject-matter — To Collect Debts and Do All Acts Which the Principal Could Personally Do. — See Jacoby v. Payson, 9 1 Hun (N. Y.) 480. A power of attorney to collect money, pay debts, settle business matters, and do whatever may be necessary and proper, does not author- ize a reloaning of the money collected. Haynes v. Carpenter, 86 Mo. App. 30. 1001. 1. Montgomery v. .Etna L. Ins. Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 913, 38 C. C. A. 553; Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 119 Ga. 124; Davis v. Fidelity F. Ins. Co., 208 111. 375; Roberts v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 8 S. Dak. 579, 59 Am. St. Rep. 777. 190 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1001 1003 1001. Usage or Custom. — See note 4. b. Where Authority Is Ambiguous. — See notes 6, 7. 1003. c. Implied Authorities. — See notes 1, 2. 1003. See note 1. Parol Evidence to Interpret Powers. — Muir v. Westcott, 34 Wash. 463. 1001. 4. Norwood 0. Alamo F. Ins. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 475 ; Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262 ; State v. Chilton, 49 W. Va. 453, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1001. 6. Construction Favorable to Third Party. — Where the authority is ambiguous it should be construed most favorably to the party dealing with the agent. Osborne v. Ringland, 122 Iowa 329. 7. Oxford Lake Line v. Pensacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla. 349 ; Evans v. Wrenn, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 346, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encvc. of Law (2d ed.) 1001 ; Halff v. O'Con- nor, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 191. 1002. 1. Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Com- mercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 151, 93 Am. St. Rep. 113, reversing 99 111. App. 108 and quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002 ; Harrison v. LeGore, 109 Iowa 618, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002 ; Hare v. Bailey, 73 Minn. 409, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002 ; Trent v. Sher- lock, 24 Mont. 255, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002; Trent v. Sher- lock, 26 Mont. 85 ; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5 ; Moyle v. Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. Ascertained by Course of Sealing. — Watkins v. Edgar, 77 Mo. App. 148 ; Pierce City Nat. Bank v. Hughlett, 84 Mo. App. 268 ; Bonner v. Lisenby, 86 Mo. App. 666 ; Batavian Bank v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 687. The acts and conduct of an agent with refer- ence to his principal's business constitute com- petent evidence to establish, by implication, authority in such agent to perform acts which are not expressly authorized, without regard to knowledge thereof by the principal. Best v. Krey, 83 Minn. 32. For Evidence Held to Be Insufficient to show a course of dealing, see Gale 1. Chase Nat. Bank, 104 Fed. Rep. 214, 43 C. C. A. 496. Recognition of Similar Acts. — Grant v. Hu- merick, 123 Iowa 571, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002; Anderson v. Johnson, 74 Minn. 171, sustaining Wilcox v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 269, stated in the original note. An Isolated Act is not proof of a general agency. Ravenna Bank v. Dobbins, 96 Mo. App. 693 ; Owens v. Hughes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 71 S. W. Rep. 783. See also Bartley v. Rhodes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 604. Illustrations — Implied Powers. — Authority to take orders includes the power to make sales. Pittsburg Sheet Mfg. Co. v. West Penn Sheet Steel Co., 197 Pa. St. 491. Authority to pay a debt includes authority to promise to pay it, so as to take the case out of the statute of limitations. In re Hale, (1899) 2 Ch. 107, 80 L. T. N. S. 827. Authority to employ agents necessarily im- plies the power to contract with them for their compensation, according to the method usual in matters of the kind. Opinion of Justices, 72 N. H. 601. Admissibility of Evidence. — Evidence that an agent made similar contracts with others is admissible as tending to show authority to make the contract in question. Kent v. Ad- dicks, 126 Fed. Rep. 112, 60 C. C. A. 660; H. C. Mahrt Co. v. Hyman-Hall Co., 17 Wash. 415. Provided the principal knew of such acts. Alt v. Grosclose, 61 Mo. App. 409. But evidence that a husband acted as agent for his wife in a transaction similar to the one before the court has been held to be incompe- tent to prove his agency in the particular trans- action in question. Molt u. Baumann, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 445. 2. Halladay v. Underwood, 90 111. App. 130; Trammell v. Turner, (Tex. Civ. App." 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 325 ; Gregory v. Loose, 19 Wash. 599, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1002. To Exchange. — An agent to effect an ex- change of property on terms already agreed upon has no authority to bind his principal by the execution of a note for the difference in value. Oliver v. Smith, 66 111. App. 94. Authority to Deposit Money in bank does not imply power to draw it out. Heath v. New Bedford Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 184 Mass. 481. Authority to Perform a Contract confers no power to change it. Owen v. Sell, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 272. Authority to Hake Collections does not neces- sarily imply authority to make or negotiate loans. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watson, 158 Ind. 508. Agency of Husband for Wife. — Although a husband is the agent of his wife to attend to her business generally, such an agency does not imply authority to declare her to be his part- ner in business. Tuscaloosa First Nat. Bank v, Lel.ind, 122 Ala. 289. 1003. 1. District of Columbia. — Norfolk, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Davis, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 306. Illinois. — Morris v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 55 111. App. 298; Schmoldt v. Langston, 106 111. App. 385- Kentucky. — Meagher v. Bowling, 107 Ky. 412; Cartmel v. Unverzaght, (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 965. Massachusetts. — Hawks v. Davis, 185 Mass. 119. Michigan. — Hodges v. Detroit Electric Light, etc., Co., 109 Mich. 547 ; Flattery v. Cun- ningham, 125 Mich. 467 ; Schaub v. Welded- Barrel Co., 125 Mich. 591. Missouri. — Stone v. Gilliam Exch. Bank, 81 Mo. App. 9 ; Wimp v. Early, 104 Mo. App. 85 ; Johnson v. Briscoe, 104 Mo. App. 493. New York. — Wanamaker v. Megraw, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 54 ; Conant v. American Rubber- Tire Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 327 ; Murgatroyd v. Hempstead Gas, etc., Co., 52 N. Y. App. Div. 191 1003-1006 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1003. '4. Construction and Scope of Certain Particular Authorities — a. To Sell Generally — (i) Consideration Must Be in Money. — See notes 2, 3. 1004. Agent Cannot Give Away. — See note I. Nor Barter or Exchange. — See note 2. Nor Pledge or Dispose of the Property to Be Sold in Payment of His Own Debts. — Sec note 4. 1005. IOOO. Or tne Debts of the Principal. — See note I. (3) Pozver Exhausted by Sale. — See note 4. b. To Sell Real Estate — (i) Sufficiency of Pozver ■ Authority MnBt Be Clear. — See notes 1 , 2. 625, denying rehearing 51 N, Y. App. Div. 612: Fitch v. Metropolitan Hotel Supply Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 611. Pennsylvania. — Stockwell v. Loecher, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 241. Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. White, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 322. Washington. — Lough v. Davis, 35 Wash. 449- Wisconsin. — Domasek v. Kluck, 113 Wis. 336- Where the Authority Rests in Parol, its extent is a question of fact for the jury. Birmingham Mineral R. Co. v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 127 Ala. 137. For Evidence Held to Be Sufficient to justify a finding of the jury that an agent had ap- parent authority to bind his principal, see Union Paving, etc., Co. v. Mowry, 137 Cal. xix, 70 Pac. Rep. 81 ; Heinz v. American Nat. Bank, 9 Colo. App. 31 ; C. and C. Electric Motor Co. v. Frisbie, 66 Conn. 67; Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa 703; Hilliard v. Weeks, 173 Mass, 304; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Watson, 90 Minn. 100; Winter, etc., Co. v. Atlantic Elevator Co., 88 Minn. 196; Droste v. Metropolitan Hotel Sup- ply Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 611 ; Mullin v. Sire, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 807; Bay State Shoe Co. v. Leeser, 196 Pa. St. 76; Edinburgh American Land, etc., Mortg. Co. o. Briggs, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 1036; Tabet v. Powell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 997. For Evidence Sufficient to Go to the Jury on the question of authority see Booth v. Bethel, 78 S. W. Rep. 868, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1747. 1003. 2. Wilken v. Voss, 120 Iowa 500 ; McGrath v. Vanaman, S3 N. J. Eq. 459 ; Beckf. Donohue, 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 230, citing 1 Am. and Ekg. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1003 ; Fay, etc., Co. v. Causey, 131 N. Car. 350 ; Lewis v. Lewis, 203 Pa. St. 194, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1003; Paul v. Grimm, 165 Pa. St. 139, 44 Am. St. Rep. 648. 3. Payment in Negotiable Paper. — See Bald- win v. Tucker, 112 Ky. 282. Taking a Note in the Name of Another Person than the principal is fatal to the transaction, and the principal may have the contract re- scinded. McGrath v. Vanaman, 53 N. J. Eq. 459- 1004. 1. Lewis v. Lewis, 203 Pa. St. 104, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1004. See also Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262. 8. Sioux City Nursery, etc., Co. v. Magnes, S Colo. App. 172 ; Woodruff v. American Road Mach. Co., 65 S. W. Rep. 600, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1551; Block v, Dundon, 83 N. Y. App. Div, 539 (even though the sale could not have been effected for money). See also Morton, v. Mor- ris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262. Authority to Exchange May Be Implied from the terms of the contract of agency. Gaus v, Hathaway, 66 111. App. 149 (authority to ex- change pianos). i. Hodgson v. Raphael, 105 Ga. 480; Bald- win v. Tucker, 112 Ky. 282; Stewart v. Cowles, 67 Minn. 194; Lewis v. Lewis, 203 Pa. St. 194, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1004; Kern's Estate, 176 Pa. St, 373; Wilson v. Wilson-Rogers Co., 181 Pa, St. 80. Note for Sewing Machine — Boarding Agent No Defense. — See Singer Mfg. Co. v. Flynn, 63 Minn. 475. 1005. 1. Shaw v. Saranac Horsenail Co., 144 N. Y. 220. See also Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262. 4. Fletcher v. Nelson, 6 N. Dak. 94 ; Brigham v. Hibbard, 28 Oregon 386. Agent to Sell Cannot Rescind. — West-End Hotel, etc., Co, v. Crawford, 120 N. Car. 347, Contra of General Agent. — Parsons Band-Cut- ter, etc., Co..z/. Mallinger, 122 Iowa 703. 1006. 1. Authority to Sell Subject to Ap- proval. — An agent who has authority only to receive proposals to purchase the property of his principal, and submit them to the latter for acceptance or rejection, cannot make an abso- lute contract of sale which will be binding upon the principal. Johnson v. American Freehold Land Mortg. Co., in Ga. 490. Authority to Negotiate a Sale or exchange of land does not imply authority to enter into a binding contract of sale or exchange. Holmes v. Redhead, 104 Iowa 399. Authority " to Demand and Receive of and from any person or persons all such real and per- sonal estate," etc., does not give authority to sell land. Hotchkiss v. Middlekauf, 96 Va. 649. 2. Illustrations of Powers Authorizing Sale. — A power of attorney " to sell or dispose of any or the whole of my property " and " in my name to sign and execute any and all instruments of writing " authorizes a sale of real estate. Gar- diner v. Griffith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 558. . A power of attorney " to buy and sell lands, etc., and to transact all business necessary in the transaction of my affairs," was held under the circumstances to authorize a sale of lands then owned, since no intention to authorize a business of buying and selling land appeared. Texas Loan Agency v. Miller, 94 Tex. 464. See Bean v. Bennett, (Tex. Civ. App. 1004) 80 S. W. Rep. 662. 193 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1007-1012 1007. 1008. 1009. 1010. Conveyance. — 1011. 1013. See note 3. ^2) Certainty and Extent of Power. — See note 3. After-acquired Land. — See note I. (3) Must Be in Manner Authorized. — See notes 2, 3. (4) When May Receive Payment. — See note 1. (5) When May Sell on Credit. — See notes 2, 3, 4. (6) Authority Not Extended by Construction. — See notes 2, 3, 4. (7) Powers Implied — To Execute Conveyances — Power to Sell Authorizes See.note 9. Power Sot under Seal. — See note I . Warranties and Representations. — See notes I, 2. To Sell Personalty — (1) Must Act Within Authority. — c. Authority to Collect Bents and Pay Taxes does not carry with it authority to sell. Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557. 1007. 3. Illustrations of Descriptions of Property. — A description of land as the " forty-acres tract " is insufficient to allow it to be identified by extrinsic proof, or to satisfy the statute of frauds. Johnson v. Fecht, 94 Mo. App. 605. A power of attorney authorizing the sale of " my headright, 640 acres of land," is suffi- ciently definite, as one can have but one head- right of 640 acres. Pool v. Unknown Heirs, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 923. 100§. 1. See Snell v. Weyerhauser, 71 Minn. 57. Power to Buy and Sell Authorizes Sale Only of Property Bought under Power. — Compare Texas Loan Agency v. Miller, 94 Tex. 464. To Sell and Assign Mortgages. — A power of attorney to sell and assign mortgages owned and possessed by the principal at the time of its execution confers no authority to sell mort gages acquired after its execution. Union Trust Co. v. Means, 201 Pa. St. 374. 2. Amyot v. Daulnais, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 3". 3. Lucas v. Rader, 29 Ind. App. 287. 1009. 1. Smith v. Browne, 132 N. Car. 365, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1008. 2. Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262. Where There Is no Authority to Sell on Credit, and the original purchaser knows, or is charged with notice of this fact, a sale on credit may be treated as void at the option of the pur- chaser. Whitley v. James, (Ga. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 600. 3. The Presumption is that the sale is to be for cash. Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262. 4. See Morton v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 262, holding that an agent is not authorized to make a sale on such terms as would require his principal to discharge a lien by the pay- ment of a disputed claim in order to make certain the time when the purchase money for his property would become due. 1010. 2. Illustrations. — Authority to sell land is not authority to sell timber alone, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Bramlette, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 25 ; or to waive claim of title, Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Feh- ring, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 120; or to organize a corporation to purchase, Godfrey v, gchneck, 105 Wis. 368. \ Supp, 8, g{ L«-i$ »93 An Agent to Negotiate the Sale of Land, but without authority to make a binding contract of sale without the consent of his principal, can- not grant a license to use part of the land as - an approach. Noftsger v. Barkdoll, 148 Ind. 531- 3, Golinsky v. Allison, 114 Cal. 458; Salem Nat. Bank v. White, 159 111. 136; Edgerly v. Cover, 106 Iowa 670 ; Morris v. Ewing, 8 N. Dak. 99 ; Nacogdoches First Nat. Bank v. Hicks, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 269 ; Minnesota Stone- ware Co. v. McCrossen, no Wis. 316, 84 Am. St. Rep. 927. 4. Anderson v. Bigelow, 16 Wash. 198. 9. Paolillo v. Faber, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 241. Compare Armstrong v. Oakley, 23 Wash. 122; Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557. Power to Sell and Convey — Conveyance With- out Sale. — A power to sell and convey does not authorize a conveyance without sale, or, in other words, without consideration. Alcorn v. Buschke, 133 Cal. 655. Power to Sell Lands Does Not Imply Power of Exchange. — Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641. Authority to Sign a Contract of Sale is included in the powers of an agent who is authorized to sell real estate. Rosenbaum v. Belson, (1900) 2 Ch. 267, 82 L. T. N. S. 658. Conveyance upon Consideration Inuring to Agent. ■ — ■ The agent has no power to convey without consideration, or upon a consideration inuring to himself. Hunter v. Eastham, 95 Tex. 648 ; Hunter v. Eastham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 336. 1011. 1. Tyrrell v. O'Connor, 56 N. J. Eq. 448, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) ion. Authority of Real-estate Agent. — Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J. Eq. 418 ; Brandrup v. Britten, 11 N. Dak. 376; Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615. 1012. 1. Farrell v. Edwards, 8 S. Dak. 425- 2. Representations as to Quantity or Quality. — Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557. Representations as to Boundaries have been held to bind the principal although such repre- sentations were not authorized. Green v. Worman, 83 Mo. App. 568. Representations as to Value. — One who has merely a right to dispose of certain property provided he can obtain a certain, price is not such an agent as can bind his principal by rep- resentations as to value. Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo. App. 506. 9, See Forbis v, Resves, 1°?, U\, App. 98; 1013-1015 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1013. See note 2. Powers Implied. — See note 3. May Sell on Approval. — See note 6. 1014. (2) When Can Sell on Credit. — See notes I, 2. (6) Power to Receive Payment — General Eule. — See note 7. 1015. See note 1. Blackmer v. Summit Coal, etc., Co., 187 111. 32, affirming 88 111. App. 636 ; Case v. Hammond Packing Co., 105 Mo. App. 168 ; L. D. Garrett Co. v. McComb, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 419; Kirby v. Western Wheeled Scraper Co., 9 S. Dak. 623. A sales agent in the absence of evidence to the contrary is presumed to have authority to make absolute sales as distinguished from merely taking orders subject to the approval of his principal. Nebraska Bridge Tie Co. v. Owen Conway & Sons, (Iowa 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 122. Price. — One appointed to sell a particular article to a particular person has authority to fix the price. Bass Dry Goods Co. -v. Granite City Mfg. Co., 119 Ga-. 124. An agent may bind his principal by a sale to a purchaser without notice at a price lower than he was authorized to make, where it is not so low as to indicate fraud. U. S. School Furniture Co. v. Board of Education, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 864; Scudder-Gale Grocer Co. v. Russell, 65 111. App. 281. Authority to Sell Does Not Imply Power to Exe- cute Chattel Mortgage. — Kiefer v. Klinsick, 144 Ind. 46 ; Wycoff, Seaman & Benedict v. Davis, (Iowa 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 349. Authority to Sell and Transfer Securities does not authorize an agent to pledge them. Hawx- hurst v. Rathgeb, 119 Cal. 531, 63 Am. St. Rep. 142. 1013. ' 2. An Agent Authorized Merely to Receive Proposals cannot bind the principal by a contract entered into without obtaining his approval. Brandenstein v. Douglas, 105 Ga. 845; Spooner v. Browning, (1898) 1 Q. B. 528, 67 L. J. Q. B. 339, 78 L. T. N. S. 98. 3. Hartford, etc., Transp. Co. v. Plymer, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 624, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1013. Illustrations. — An agent having power and authority to sell a machine under a contract which contains conditions for the benefit of the seller, has authority to bind his principal by a waiver of such conditions. Webster City First Nat. Bank v. Dutcher, (Iowa 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 497. The Power of a Mortgagor to Purchase as Agent of the Mortgagee Is Not Implied from a power to sell goods and apply the proceeds to the payment of the mortgage. Kelly v. Tracy, etc., Co., 71 Ohio St. 220. Cannot Advertise Business. — Beck v. Dono- hue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 230; Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Dellmar, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 747. Cannot Pay Commissions to Third Person. — Jones v. Keeler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 221 ; National Cash Register Co. v. Hagan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 727. Cannot Bind Principal by Collateral Undertaking. ^A general selling agent has no authority to bind his principal by a collateral undertaking to answer for the conduct of a competitor. Hess v. Heegaard, 54 111. App. 227; Kinser v. Calumet Fire-Clay Co., 165 111. 505- See also Braun v. Hess, 187 111. 283, 79 Am. St. Rep. 22i, affirming 86 111. App. 544. May Fix Time of Delivery. — An agent having power to make a contract of sale has power to fix the time of delivery. Smith v. Droubay, 20 Utah 443. 6. Jesse French Piano, etc., Co. tf Cardwell, 114 Ga. 340; Marion Mfg. Co. v. Harding, 155 Ind. 648 ; Eastern Mfg. Co. v. Brenk, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 97. Sales on Approval. — But an agent cannot thus vary the express terms of a written contract. Flower City Plant Food Co. v. Roberts, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 249. And Give Further Time for Trial. — To the same effect as Bannon v. Aultman, 80 Wis. 307, stated in the original note, see Reeves v. Cress, 80 Minn. 466. See also Warder, etc., Co. v. Pischer, no Wis. 363. May Agree to Put in Good Condition. — An agent has authority to agree with a purchaser that a machine shall be put in good condition, McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Smith, 9 Kulp ( Pa. ) 448 ; and also to agree upon a time within which it shall be done, notwithstanding a clause in the contract providing " that no agent has any power to make additions to or to vary the terms and conditions hereof," Holt Mfg. Co. v. Dunnigan, 22 Wash. 134. 1014. 1. Norton v. Nevills, 174 Mass. 243; Kops Bros. Co. v. Smith, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 169; State v. Chilton, 49 W. Va. 453, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1014. 2. Granting Extension. — An agent selling goods on credit has no authority to grant an extension. Mater v. American Nat. Bank, 8 Colo. App. 325. 7. Fabian Mfg. Co. v. Newman, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 218. Sale and Delivery by Agent. — Maxfield v. Carpenter, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 450. Authority to Sell and Collect Implies Authority to Deduct from Price. — See Thomas Roberts Stevenson Co. v. Fox, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 177. 1015. 1. Dreyfus v. Goss, 67 Kan. 57; Clark v. Murphy, 164 Mass. 490; Ketelman v. Chicago Brush Co., 65 Neb. 429 : Hahnenfeld v. Wolff, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 133; Giltman v. Bergey, n Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 162; Shull v. New Birdsall Co., 15 S. Dak. 8, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1015; Fabian Mfg. Co. -u. New- man, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 218. Notice to Pay Principal. — If a purchaser has notice, express or implied, to pay the princi- pal, payment to the agent will not bind the prin- cipal. Lamb v. Hirschberg, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 519- 194 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1015-1030 1015. 1016. 1017. note 5. 101§. 1019. 1030. Sales 011 Credit. — See notes 2, 3. Traveling Salesmen and Soliciting Agents. — See note 3. (7) Powers of Traveling Salesmen — Hotel Bills. — See note 2. d. TO MORTGAGE — Power to Insert Usual Provisions Implied. — When Authority to Mortgage Not Implied. — See note 2. To Cancel Mortgage. — See note 3. e. To Lease. — See notes 5, 6. Power to Lease Implied. — See note 8. Agent to Lease — Scope of Powers. — See note 2. Lease for Unauthorized Period. — See note 4. /. To Purchase — (1) Must Observe Authority. - See See notes 1, 3,4. 1015. 2. Williams v. Anderson, 107 111. App. 32. Agent Receiving Securities — When Authority to Collect Terminates. — Rhodes v. Belchee, 36 Oregon 141. 3. Doctrine of " Holding Out " Applies. — An agent placed in sole charge of a branch office is held out as being something more than a mere selling agent, and has implied authority to receive payment for goods sold. Carter White Lead Co. v. Pounds, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 476. 1016. 3. Brown v. Lally, 79 Minn. 38 ; Giltinan v. Bergey, 5 Pa. Dist. 20 ; Fabian Mfg. Co. v. Newman, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 218; Crawford v. Whittaker, 42 W. Va. 430, citing [ Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1036 [1016], and holding further that false representations by a salesman as to mem- bership in the firm cannot affect the rule. Order Given to Agent Is Not Sale. — To the same effect as McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515, stated in the original note, see John Mat- thews Apparatus Co. v. Renz, 61 S. W. Rep. 9, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1528. To the same effect as Greenhood v. Keator, 9 111. App. 183, stated in the original note, see Lakeside Press, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523, 22 So. Rep. 878. Contra. — Kuhlman v. E. J. Hart Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 455. 1017. 2. Grand Ave. Hotel Co. v. Fried- man, 83 Mo. App. 491. & Salesman Cannot Bind His Principal for Laun- dry Bills or other expenses not connected with his business. Grand Ave. Hotel Co. v. Fried- man, 83 Mo. App. 491. 5. Collateral Undertaking. — Authority to create and execute a mortgage to one person, if it includes discretion respecting its character and terms of payment, cannot by implication be extended to embrace a collateral undertaking with a second lien to a stranger. Bangor, etc., R. Co. v. American Bangor Slate Co., 203 Pa. St. 6. 1018. 2. Reed v. Kimsey, 98 111. App: 364. 8. Authority to Foreclose a mortgage does not authorize an extension of the period of redemp- tion. Karcher v. Gans, 13 S. Dak. 383, 79 Am. St. Rep. 893. General Directions to Foreclose a Mortgage which in terms covers the right of possession of the premises leave to the agent the exercise of discretion as to taking possession of the premises. Standard Brewery v. Nudelman, 70 111. App. 356. AlltljOrtty to Enter Satisfaction °i a mortgage carries no authority to assign it. Googe v. Gaskill, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 39. 5. Where a Seal Is Not Necessary to the Valid- ity of a Lease it is not necessary that an agent's authority to execute the lease should be in writing and under seal, although a seal is in fact affixed. Mcintosh v. Hodges, no Mich. 319- 6. Marshall v. Rugg, 6 Wyo. 270. Authority to Extend a Lease has been held to be included in authority to lease. Pittsburg Mfg. Co. v. Fidelity Title, etc., Co., 207 Pa. St. 223. 8. Authority Not Implied. — Dieckman v. Weirich, 73 S. W. Rep. n 19, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2340. See also Burgess v. Willis, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 672. The Bight to Accept a Surrender of a lease is not included by implication in authority to col- lect rent. Blake v. Dick, 15 Mont. 236, 48 Am. St. Rep. 671. Substitution of Tenants. — An agent to rent premises and to collect rent, at least where the lease made is for a term of more than one year and under seal, has no implied power to consent to the substitution of a new tenant. Wallace v. Dirminy, (C. PI. Gen. T.) n Misc. (N. Y.) 317. Authority to Alter Terms. — A general agent who fixed the terms of the original letting has authority to modify such terms'. Ireland v. Hyde, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 546. 1019. 2. Faville v. Lundvall, 106 Iowa 135 ; Barkley v. Holt, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 957. Authority to Reduce v Rent. — An agent with authority to modify a lease by reducing the rent has authority to accept a surrender of the premises. Goldsmith v. Schroeder, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 206. 1 No Authority to Waive Lien. — Mere authority to lease land does not of itself carry power to waive the principal's lien for rent. Wimp v. Early, 104 Mo. App. 85. 4. See Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594, hold- ing that an agent empowered to let a tract of land for one year, at a rental of six hundred dollars, cannot make a lease, either oral or written, obligatory on his principal, for a por- tion of the land at a rental of two hundred and twenty-five dollars for a term exceeding one year. See also Schumacher v. Pabst Brewing Co., 78 Minn. 50. 1020. 1. Purchase at Higher Price. — An agent authorized to purchase at a certain price 195 1030-1033 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1030. (2) To Purchase on Credit — Not Implied. — See note 5. 1031. Where Furnished with Funds. — See note I. Where No Funds Furnished. — See note 3. (3) Implied Powers. — See notes 4, 5. 1033. Agent to Purchase on Credit. — See note I. Execution of Negotiable Notes. — See note 2. g. To Manage Business or Property — Power coextensive with Business. — See note 3. 1033. See note 1. cannot bind his principal by an oral agreement to pay more. Burks v. Stam, 65 Mo. App. 455- No Authority to Sell Implied. — Hogue v. Simonson, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 139. Agent Cannot Take Deed to Himself. — Nelms v. Dougherty, (Ky. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 870. Agent Cannot Divert Purchase Money to Private Use. — Thompson v. Sproul, 179 Pa. St. 266. 1020. 3. An Agent Authorized to Buy a Cer- tain Grade of brick cannot bind his principal by a purchase of an inferior grade, unless the principal accepts such purchase. Theile u. Chi- cago Brick Co., 60 111. App. 559. 4. Robinson Mercantile Co. v. Thompson, 74 Miss. 847 ; Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1020, notes 1-4. 6. Brittain v. Westhall, 135 N. Car. 492. By a Long-continued Course of Dealing, author- ity to purchase on credit may be proved. Witcher v. Gibson, 15 Colo. App. 163. A Coachman has no implied authority to pur- chase forage on his employer's credit. Wright v. Glyn, (1902) 1 K. B. 745. 1021. 1. Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624 ; Chapman v. Americus Oil Co., 1 1 7 Ga. 881 ; Brooks v. Mortimer, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 518; Saugerties, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Miller, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 167; Thomas Gibson Co. v, Carlisle, 3 Ohio Dec. 27, 1 Ohio N. P. 398. 3. Spear, etc., Supply Co. v. Van Riper, 103 Fed. Rep. 689. See also Merchants, etc., Bank ■u. Cottrell, 96 Ga. 168. 4. See Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429 (power to make statements as to class to which purchaser belongs) ; Watts v. Howard, 70 Minn. 122 (power to agree to particular mode of measuring logs) ; Brown v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 162 (power to agree on terms of redemption from execution sale). 5. Modification of Contract. — See Day Bros. Lumber Co. v. Daniel, 62 S. W. Rep. 866, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 285. Rescinding Contract. — A general agent for the purchase of grain may rescind a contract of purchase. , Middle Div. Elevator Co. v. Vande- venter, 80 111. App. 669. 1022. 1. Morris v. Posner, m Iowa 335. 2. Edgerly v. Cover, 106 Iowa 670, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1022. Clerk Having General Management of Business. — See Graton, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Redelsheimer, 28 Wash. 370. 3. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc. ■ v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642; Hille v. Adair, 58 S. W. Rep. 697, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 742. See also Flint v. Boston, etc., R. Co., (N. H. 1905) 59 Atl. Rep. 938. Repairing, Rebuilding. — An agent authorized tp. pay for repajrs ^ a ftquge, gut p| th^ rents *$ and also recognized as " agent for the house " has authority to contract for repairs. Scofield v. Warren, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 209. But the caretaker of a house has no au- thority to contract for unnecessary repairs. Hill v. Coates, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 535- Keep Up Stock. — An agent placed in charge of goods " with authority to transact any busi- ness in reference thereto that may be necessary and in accordance with the desire of, or by agreement with, the principal " is not author- ized to replenish the stock. Weekes v. A. F. Shapleigh Hardware Co., 23 Tex. Civ. App. 577- For Other Illustrations of the principle see A. G. Rhodes Furniture Co. v. Weeden, 108- Ala. 252 (power to rent storehouse) ; Phillips, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Whitney, 109 Ala. 64s (power to renew lease) ; Baldwin v. Garrett, 111 Ga. 876 (power to rent a house) ; B. S. Green Co. v. Blodgett, 55 111. App. 556 (power to contract for advertising) ; Forked Deer Pants Co. v. Shipley, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 476 (power to contract for labor) ; Nichols, etc., Co. 0. Hackney, 78 Minn. 461 (power to' accept notes) ; Kaes v. Lime Co., 71 Mo. App. 101 (power to purchase whatever necessary to carry on business) ; Laming v. Peters Shoe Co., 71 Mo. App. 646 (power to employ a foreman) ; New York Telephone Co. v. Barnes, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 327 (power to contract for telephone service) ; Hughes v. Lansing, 34 Oregon 118, 75 Am. St. Rep. 574 (power to waive liens). 1023. 1. An Agent to Manage a Hotel has authority to bind his principal by a contract for advertising the hotel in a daily paper. Mul- lin v. Sire, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 540. , - The General Manager of a Mining Company is not, by virtue of his office, authorized to convey its lands, or to grant an easement or give a license therein. Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 21 Mont. 539. A superintendent of a mine is not, as such, authorized to make contracts for machinery and other supplies necessary for the milling or smelting operations of his principal. Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85. The manager of a mining company has au- thority to contract for the drainage of the mine, when necessary to the continuance of the work. Fisk Min., etc., Co. -v. Reed, (Colo. 1903) 77 Pac. Rep. 240. To Manage Plantation. — One employed tp manage a plantation has no authority to bind his employer by the execution of notes. La- fourche Trafisp, Co. y, Pugh., ,2 Lg, ^, ijty Vol. I. AGENCY. 1034-1036 1034. See note i. Cannot Dispose of Busmen. — See note 2. Nor Mortgage. — See note 3. 1035. Cannot Borrow. — See notes 3, 4. Nor Execute Notes. — See note 5- k. To Receive Payment — (i) From What Authority Will Be Implied — Presentation of Bill. — See note 6. 1036. Making the Contract. — See note I. The Beceipt of Interest. — See note 2. Possession of Securities. — See notes 3, 4. 1024. 1. For Illustrations of Acts Beyond Authority see George v. Ross, 128 Ala. 666 ; McClun v. McClun, 176 111. 376; Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo. App. 384; Camacho v. Hamilton Bank-Note, etc., Co., 2 N. Y. App. Div. 369 ; Parr v. Northern Electrical Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 278. 2. Agent to Manage Property — Disposing of Property. — Johnson v. Sage, 4 Idaho 758. 3. Alabama Nat. Bank v. O'Neil, 128 Ala. 192, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1024; Golinsky v. Allison, 114 Cal. 458; St. Augustine First Nat. Bank v. Kirkby, 43 Fla. 376 ; Edgerly v. Cover, 106 Iowa 670. To the same effect as Taylor v. Labeaume, 17 Mo. 338, stated in the original note, see Thayer v. Nehalem Mill Co., 31 Oregon 437. 1025. 3. McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64. ' Evidence Showing Authority to Borrow. — See Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky Mountain Tel. Co., 20 Mont. 379, 63 Am. St. Rep. 628. 4. Cannot Bind Principal as Surety. — See Bul- lard v. De Groff, 59 Neb. 783. 5. Alabama Nat. Bank v. O'Neil, 128 Ala. 192, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1025; Golinsky v. Allison, 114 Cal. 458; Sanford Cattle Co. v. Williams, 18 Colo. App. 378 ; Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky Mountain Tel. Co., 20 Mont. 379, 63 Am. St. Rep. 628 ; Jacoby v. Payson, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 480. But see Glidden, etc., Varnish Co. v. Interstate Nat. Bank, 69 Fed. Rep. 912, 32 U. S. App. 654; Baines v. Coos Bay, etc., R., etc., Co., (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 400; Whitten v. Fincastle Bank, 100 Va. 546. 6. One Sent to Deliver Notice of Foreclosure to a mortgagor has no authority to accept a tender from the mortgagor. Bacon v. Hooker, 173 Mass. 554. 1026. 1, Fortune v. Stockton, 182 111. 454; Ortmeier v. Ivory, 208- 111. 577, affirming 109 111. App. 361 ; Trull v. Hammond, 71 Minn. 172 ; Central Trust Co. v. Folsom, 167 N. Y. 285 ; Henken v. Schwicker, 174 N. Y. 298, affirming 67 N. Y. App. Div. 196 ; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5. citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1026; Western Security Co. v. Douglass, 14 Wash. 215. See also Henken v. Schwicker, 67 N. Y. APP- Div - IQ 6> per Wood ward, J., dissenting, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1026. An Agent to Negotiate a Loan has no im- plied authority to collect it. Madison v. Caba- lek, 86 111. App. 450; Townsend v. Studer, 109 Iowa 103: White v. Madigan, 78 Minn. 286; Werth v. Ollis, 70 Mo. App. 318; Hefferman v. Botelcr, 87 Mo. App. 316; Evans-Snider-Bucl Co. v. Holder, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 300. Note Payable at Certain Place.— The mere fact that a note is made payable at a certain place, as the office of an attorney, does not of itself confer any agency upon the owner or occupant of that place to receive payment in behalf of the payee. Klindt 0. Higgins, 95 Iowa 529 ; Bloomer v. Dau, 122 Mich. 522 ; Dwight v. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78 ; White v. Kehlor, 85 Mo. App. 557 ; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35; Stolzman v. Wyman, 8 N. Dak. 108; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5 ; Bartel v. Brown, 104 Wis. 493. See also Montreal Bank v. Ingcr- son, 105 Iowa 349. 2. United States. — Ilgenfritz v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 27 ; Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Miles, 81 Fed. Rep. 32. Colorado. — Lester v. Snyder, 12 Colo. App. 35i- Iowa. — Klindt v. Higgins, 95 Iowa 529. Kansas. — Bronson v. Ashlock, 2 Kan. App. 255- Michigan. — Joy v. Vance, 104 Mich. 97; Bromley v. Lathrop, 105 Mich. 492 ; Trowbridge v. Ross, 105 Mich. 598; Wilson v. Campbell, no Mich. 580; Terry v. Durand Land Co., 112 Mich. 665. Minnesota. — Trull v. Hammond, 71 Minn. 172; Dwight v. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78; Thomas v. Swanke, 75 Minn. 326 ; White v. Madigan, 78 Minn. 286. Missouri. — Hefferman v. Boteler, 87 Mo. App. 316. Nebraska. -*■ Richards v. Waller, 49 Neb. 639; Porter v. Ourada, 51 Neb. 510; Frey v. Curtis, 52 Neb. 406; Thompson v. Kyner, 53 Neb. 625 ; Chandler v. Pyott, 53 Neb. 786 ; Campbell v. O'Connor, 55 Neb. 638 ; Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 645 ; Gilbert v. Garber, 62 Neb. 464 ; Dewey v. Bradford, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 249 ; Lay v. Honey, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 998. New York. — Central Trust Co. v. Folsom, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 295. North Dakota. — Stolzman v. Wyman, 8 N. Dak. 108; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35. Ohio. — Hitchcock v. Kelley, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 180, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 808. Texas. — Cunningham u. McDonald, (Tex. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 372 : Higley v. Dennis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 400. 8. Union Trust Co. v. McKeon, 76 Conn. 508; Smith v. Landecki, 101 III. App. 248; Dwight v. Lenz, 73 Minn. 78 ; Frank v. Tuozzo, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 447 ; Central Trust Co. v. Folsom, 167 N. Y. 285, reversing 38 N. Y. App. Div. 295 ; Hitchcock v. Kelley, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 180. t8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 808; Corbet v. Waller, 27 Wash. 242. Possession of Bond and Mortgage. — O'Loughlin v. Billy, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 99. 197 1037-1098 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1037. (2) Payment Must Be in Money. — See note 3. Notes, Drafts, Checks, etc, — See note 3, 1038. See note 1. Certificates of Deposit. — See note 2. 1026. 4. United States. — Ilgenfritz v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 27. Arkansas. — Bagnell v. Walker, 65 Ark. 325- Colorado. — Lester v. Snyder, 12 Colo. App. 351. '* Georgia. — Walton Guano Co. v. McCall, 1 1 1 Ga. 114. Illinois. — Fortune v. Stockton, 182 111. 454, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1026; Stockton v. Fortune, 82 111. App. 272. Kansas. — Bronson v. Ashlock, 2 Kan. App. 255. Compare Fowle v. Outcalt, 64 Kan. 352. Michigan. — Joy v. Vance, 104 Mich. 97; Bloomer v. Dau, 122 Mich. 522. Minnesota. — Schenk v. Dexter, 77 Minn. 15; Dwight 0. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78. Missouri. — Padley v. Neill, 134 Mo. 364. Nebraska. — Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 645 ; Gilbert v. Garber, 62 Neb. 464. North Dakota. — Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1026. Texas. — Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. Holder, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 300. Washington. — Western Security Co. u. Douglass, 14 Wash, 215 ; Corbet v. Waller, 27 Wash. 242. Wisconsin. — Winkeltnann v. Brickett, 102 Wis. 50 ; Bartel v. Brown, 104 Wis. 493 ; Spence v. Pieper, 107 Wis. 453 ; Kohl v. Beach, 107 Wis. 409, 81 Am. St. Rep. 849. Compare Union Trust Co. v. McKeon, 76 Conn. 508, holding that possession of the se- curities is not in every case essential to the existence of apparent authority ; Morgan v. Neal, 7 Idaho 629, 97 Am. St. Rep. 264. Burden of Proof. — One paying money to an- other to be applied on a note which such per- son has not in his possession assumes the burden to show the authority of the person to whom payment is made to receive the money. Iowa.- — Townsend n. Studer, 109 Iowa 103; Harrison v. Legore, 109 Iowa 618. Minnesota. — Thomas v. Swanke, 75 Minn. 326; Budd v. Broen, 75 Minn. 316. Missouri. — Hefferman v. Boteler, 87 , Mo. App. 316; City Nat. Bank v. Goodloe-McClel- land Commission Co., 93 Mo. App. 123. Nebraska. — Omaha First Nat. Bank v. Chil- son, 45 Neb. 257 : Bull v. Mitchell, 47 Neb. 647 , Richards v. Waller, 49 Neb. 639 ; City Mission- ary Soc. v. Reams, 51 Neb. 225; Chandler v. Pyott, S3 Neb. 786 ; Campbell v. O'Connor, 55 Neb. 638 ; Dewey v. Bradford, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 249 ; Lay v. Honey, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 998. New York. — Frank v. Tuozzo, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 447. Oregon. — Long Creek Bldg. Assoc, v. State Ins. Co., 29 Oregon 569 ; Rhodes v. Belchee, 36 Oregon 141. Lack of Possession Is Not Conclusive of the question of authority, or want of it, but is a circumstance to be considered in the determi- nation of such question. Thomson v. Shelton, 49 Neb. 644; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Walter, 51 Neb. 182; Harrison Nat. -Bank v. Austin, 65 Neb. 632, 101 Am. St. Rep. 639. Apparent Authority May Exist Without Posses- sion.— Reid v. Kellogg, 8 S. Dak. 596. For Evidence Held to Be Sufficient to show au- thority to receive payment, see Frost v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 322; Wolford v. Young, 105 Iowa 512 ; Doe v. Callow, 64 Kan. 886, 67 Pac. Rep. 824; Wilson v. La Tour, 108 Mich. 547; Ziegan v. Strieker, no Mich. 282; Bissell v. Dowling, 117 Mich. 646; Springfield Sav. Bank v. Kjaer, 82 Minn. 180; General Convention, etc., v. Torkelson, 73 Minn. 401 ; May v. Jarvis-Conklin Mortg. Trust Co., 138 Mo. 275 ; Gathercole u. Peck, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 513- See also Dilenbeck v. Rehse, 105 Iowa 749. For Evidence Held to Be Insufficient, see Church Assoc, v. Walton, 114 Mich. 677-; New England L. & T. Co. v. Browne, 157 Mo. 116; Hefferman v. Boteler, 87 Mo. App. 316; Brad- bury v. Kinney, 63 Neb. 754. 1027. 2. National Bank of Republic v. Old Town Bank, 112 Fed. Rep. 726, 50 C. C. A. 443; Stetson v. Briggs, 114 Cal. 511; Reed v. Jennings, 196 111. 472, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027; Cooney v. U. S. Wringer Co., 101 III. App. 468, citing : Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027; Scott v. Gilkey, 153 111. 168; Rush v. Rush, 170 111. 623 ; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Breen, 61 111. App. 528 ; Woodruff u. American Road Mach. Co., 65 S. W. Rep. 600, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1551; Trull v. Hammond, 71 Minn. 172; Moore v. Pollock, 50 Neb. 900 ; Cram v. Sickel, ' 51 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478; Gilbert v. Garber, 62 Neb. 464 ; Dixon v. Guay, 70 N. H. 161 ; Paul v. Grimm, 165 Pa. St. 139, 44 Am. St. Rep. 648 ; Columbia Phosphate Co. v. Far- mers' Alliance Store, 47 S. Car. 358 ; Willis v. Gorrell, 102 Va. 746 ; Corbet v. Waller, 27 Wash. 242, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027. May Take Order for Money About to Become Due to Debtor. — RutAvenp. Clarke, 109 Iowa 25. 3. Holt v. Schneider, 57 Neb. 523. Drafts. — Hine v. Steamship Ins. Syndicate, 1 1 Reports jj 1 ; ; Gowling v. American Express Co., J02 Mo. App. 366. Checks, — Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa 202. But a check immediately paid is equivalent to money. Hine v. Steamship Ins. Syndicate, 11 Reports 777. Where the Agent Is Authorised to Receive Checks, a check given in payment operates as a discharge of the debt although the agent cashes the check and misappropriates the pro- ceeds. Sage v. Burton, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 267. See also Allen v. Tarrant, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 172. 1028. 1. Rodgers v. Peckham, 120 Cal. 238 ; Woodruff v. American Road Mach. Co., 65 S. W. Rep. 600, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1551. By Statute in Georgia a general agent to col- lect binds his principal by the receipt of prop- erty other than money. Holmes v. Langston, no Ga. 861. 2. See Montreal Bank v. Ingerson, 103 Iowa 349- I98 Vol. I. ' AGENCY. 10SSI 1039 1028. Cannot Compound Debt. — See notes 3, 4. Cannot Substitute Note Payable to Agent. — See note 5. Nor Exchange the Security. — See note 6. 1039. (3) Time of Payment. — See notes 1, 2. (4) Powers Implied — May Employ Counsel and Sue. — See notes 3, 4. 1030. Part Payment. — See note 5. No Authority to Indorse. — See note 6. Nor Transfer Claim. — See note 7. 1031. i. To Settle. — See note 1. Limitation of Powers. — See notes 5, 6. 1033. j. To Draw and Indorse Negotiable Instruments — (i) Express or Implied Power. — See notes 4, 5. 1028. 3. Hoster v. Lange, 80 Mo. App. 234; Langdon First Nat. Bank v. Prior, 10 N. Dak. 146; Corbet v. Waller, 27 Wash. 242. No Authority to Release. — Johnson v. Wilson, 137 Ala. 468, 97 Am. St. Rep. 52; Torbit v. Heath, 1 1 Colo. App. 492 ; Robinson v. Nipp, 20 Ind. App. 156; Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 82S, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478 ; Knoche v. Whiteman, 86 Mo. App. 568. No Authority to Waive Lien. — Couch v. Davidson, 109 Ala. 313. Cannot Set Off for Debt Due by Principal. — Hill v. Van Duzer, 111 Ga. 867. 4. Stetson v. Briggs, 114 Cal. 511; Walton Guano Co, v. McCall, 11 1 Ga. 114; Cooney v. U. S. Wringer Co., 101 111. App. 468, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1028; Western White Bronze Co. v. Portrey, 50 Neb. 801 ; Chattanooga Foundry, etc., Works v. Gorman, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 75. Commuting Debt. — L' Artiste Pub. Co. v. Walker, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 11 Misc. (N. Y.) 426. 6. Everts v. Lawther, 165 111. 487 ; Baldwin v. Tucker, 112 Ky. 282. See also H. J. Molil- man Co. v. Reikers, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 770. Compare Baldwin v. Tucker, 75 S. W. Rep. 196, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 222. 6. Farmers', etc., Bank v. Bennett, (Ky. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 623. 10*21). 1. Cannot Extend Time. — Behrns v. Rogers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 419. 2. Cannot Receive Payment Before Due. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins, 65 Ark. 385; Lester v. Snyder, 12 Colo. App. 351; Barstow v. Stone, 10 Colo. App. 396 ; Madison v. Cabalek, 86 111. App. 450 ; Williams v. Pelley, 96 111. App. 346 ; Wilcox v. Eadie, 65 Kan. 459 ; Park v. Cross, 76 Minn. 187, 77 Am. St. Rep. 630; Schenk v. Dexter, 77 Minn. 15; City Nat. Bank v. Goodloe-McClelland Commission Co., 93 Mo. App. 123 ; Cunningham v. McDonald, (Tex, 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 372. See also Frost v. Fisher, 13, Colo. App. 322. Effect of Usage. — To the same effect as Thompson, v. Elliott, 73 111. 221, stated in the original note, see Melntosh v. Ransom, 106 111. App. 172; Thornton v. Lawther, 169 111. 228. See also Peterson v. Fullerton, 106 111. App. 237, 3. Strong v. West, no Ga. 382. 4. Authority to Collect Implies Authority to Sue. — Briggs v. Yetzer, 103 Iowa 342. But an agent authorized to collect an interest coupon has no implied authority to foreclose a collateral mortgage. Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430; Dexter v. Morrow, 76 Minn. 413; White v. Madigan, 78 Minn. 286 ; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5. 1030. 5. A Banking Company, as agent to collect a check, has no authority to accept a partial payment. Lowenstein v. Bresler, 109 Ala. 326. 6. Deering v. Kelso, 74 Minn. 41, 73 Am. St. Rep. 324 ; Jacoby v. Payson, 85 Hun (N. Y.) 367. See also Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 151, 93 Am. St. Rep. 113, reversing 99 111. App. 108; Ben- nett v. Chandler, 199 111. 97, modifying 101 111. App. 409. But see National Bank of Republic v. Old Town Bank, 112 Fed. Rep. 726, 50 C. C. A. 443- Authority Given to Collector to Receive Checks. — Sinclair v. Goodell, 93 111. App. 592; Good- ell v. Sinclair, 112 111. App. 594. 7. Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 682 ; Rigby v. Lowe, 125 Cal. 613. 1031. 1. Griffith v. Fields, 105 Iowa 362. Power to Execute Deeds of Relinquishment. — An agent authorized to compromise and adjust adverse claims to land is authorized to execute deeds of relinquishment to the adverse claim- ants. Smith v. Cantrel, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1081 ; Wilcoxon v. Howard, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 281. Power to Appeal from Judgment. ■ — Power " to acknowledge or contest any claim " and " to defend, compromise, or settle any suit," em- braces authority to appeal from, as well as to resist, a judgment in the first instance. Low- rey v. Bates, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 407. 5. Reference to Arbitration. — New York v. Du Bois, 86 Fed. Rep. 889 ; New York v. Du- bois, 132 Fed. Rep. 752; Allen v. Confederate Pub. Co., 121 Ga. 773, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1031 ; King u. King, 104 La. 420; Manufacturers, etc., F. Ins. Co. v. Mullen, 48 Neb. 620. , 6. Hussey v. Crass, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 986, holding that authority to effect a settlement confers no authority to 'sell the bonds received in settlement. 1032. 4. Sanford Cattle Co. v. Williams, 18 Colo. App. 378. See also Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky Mountain Tel. Co., 20 Mont. 379, 63 Am. St. Rep. 628; Stock Exch. Bank v. Wil- liamson, 6 Okla. 348. Authority given to an agent to sell goods and take notes for the price does not authorize him to indorse the notes so taken. National Fence 199 1032-1035 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1033. 1033. 1034. 1035. When Implied. — See note 6. (2) Subject to Strict Interpretation. — See notes I, 2. (3) Must Be for Benefit of Principal. — See note 3. k. To Ship. — See note 4. /. To Employ. — See note 5. m. To Borrow or Lend. — See note 1. Mach. Co. v. Highleyman, (Kan. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 568. 1032. 5. Edgerly v. Cover, 106 Iowa 670, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1032. 6. Boord v. Strauss, '39 Fla. 381; Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. quoting i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1032; State v. Rivers, 124 Iowa 17; Fle- wellen v. Mittenthal, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 234; Whitten v. Fincastle Bank, 100 Va. 546. Illustrations of Implied Power. — A manager having the sole and exclusive control and man- agement of a branch house of a mercantile and manufacturing corporation whose domicil is in a distant state has authority, when necessary, to borrow money and give his principal's nego- tiable note therefor. Glidden, etc., Varnish Co. v. Interstate Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 912. A power of attorney "to transact all busi- ness of every nature which I may have in the state of Texas, and to make, execute, and de- liver any and all papers, documents, deeds of conveyance, or other instruments," confers au- thority to transfer a note. Presnall v. Mc- Leary, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1066. 1033. 1. Illustrations of Interpretation of Authorities — No Authority to Renew. — Stock Jb-xch. Bank v. Williamson, 6 Okla. 348. Or Indorse. — Authority to draw on the prin- cipal for money to carry on the business in- cludes authority to procure an indorser of the drafts drawn. Marsh v. French, 82 111. App. 76. • No Authority to Waive Protest and Notice. — Authority to indorse notes, etc., does not include authority to waive protest or notice. Needles' Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. 762. 2. Eldridge v. Husted, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 177, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033, and supporting the text paragraph generally. Authority Strictly Pursued. — Power to make restricted indorsements will not authorize a general indorsement in blank. Exchange Bank v. Thrower, 118 Ga. 433. Authority to make drafts for timber delivered to the agent does not confer authority to make drafts for timber which he has not received and which has no existence. Gray Tie, etc., Co. v. Farmers' Bank, 78 S. W. Rep. 207, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1596. Compare Slaughter v. Fay, 80 111. App. 105. 1034.' 3. Boord v. Strauss, 39 Fla. 381 ; Eldridge v. Husted, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 177, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1034, and reversing (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 534 ; Connell v. McLoughlin, 28 Oregon 230 ; Rohrbough v. U. S. Express Co., 50 W. Va. 148, 88 Am. St. Rep. 849, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1032, 1034. Compare Slaughter v. Fay, 80 111. App. 105. Accommodation Paper.— Myers v. Walker, 104 Ga. 316. 4. California Powder Works v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 329; Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan, 29 Ind. App. 606, 94 Am. St. Rep. 279, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1034; Jones v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 N. Y. App. Div. 341 ; Waldron v. Fargo, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 18. 5. Drohan v. Merrill, etc., Lumber Co., 75 Minn. 251, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1034; Opinion of Justices, 72 N. H. 601. See also Stahlberger v. New Hartford Leather Co., 92 Hun (N. Y.) 245. Time for Which Agent May Employ. — An agent has apparent authority to hire an em- ployee for six months, when it is well known that the business will last that length of time. World's Columbian Exposition v. Richards, 57 111. App. 601. Compensation. — Authority to employ laborers to work upon the roadbed of a railway com- pany has been held not to imply power to agree to pay the rent of their dwelling houses. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Humphreys, 114 Ga. 681. An agent to employ has no authority to make an agreement that if an employee will resign his position the balance of his salary for the season will be paid to him. Prior' v. Flagler, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 10 Misc. (N. Y.) 496. Authority to Employ Implied. — One employed as manager of a department of a store, his duties in connection therewith to begin at a future date, has ostensible authority to hire help so as to have that department organized and ready for business on that date. Wana- maker v. Megraw, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 616. 1035. 1. Security Sav. Bank v. Smith, 38 Oregon 72, 84 Am. St. Rep. 756; Young v. Union Sav. Bank, etc., Co., 23 Wash. 360. When Authority Implied. — Authority to bor- row money must be created by express terms, or be necessarily implied from the very nature of the agency actually created. It will not be presumed even from the appointment of one as general agent, unless the character of the busi- ness or the duties of the agent are of such a nature that he is bound to borrow in order to carry out his instructions and the duties of the office. Exchange Bank v. Thrower, 118 Ga. 433. But it may be implied when indispensable to the conduct of the business in the agent's hands. Ladd v. ^tna Indemnity Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 298. What Powers Implied. — One who places a mortgage and certificate of no defense in the hands of an agent for the purpose of obtaining a loan cannot deny such agent's authority to repledge the securities for a second loan to pay the first. Hayes's Appeal, 195 Pa. St. 177. An agent to borrow money for his principal Vol. I. AGENCY. 1035 1047 1035. VII. Manneb of Execution of Authority — 2. Formal Execution — a. General Rule. — See note 7. 1036. b. Instruments under Seal— (i) Application of the General Rule. — See note 1. 1038. " Principal by Agent " — " Agent for Principal." ■ — See note i". Statutes. — See note ^. (2) Imperfect Execution — (a) Agent Bound — Agent Using Apt Words to Charge Himself. — See note 6. 1039. See notes 2, 3. 1041. (c) Conveyances of Estates. — See note 2. 1043. c. Negotiable Instruments — (i) Application of General Rule. — See notes 2, 3. 1 043. Descriptio Persons. • — See note I . 1040. (3) Signature in Principal 's Name. — See note 2. (4) Undisclosed Principal. — See note 3. 1047. (5) Principal Impliedly Disclosed — Name Printed on the Instrument. — See note 1. has no right to pay it over to a third person. Land Mortg. Invest. Agency Co. v. Preston, 119 Ala. 290. An agent authorized to negotiate a mortgage loan, and to bind his principal to pay for mak- ing a complete search of the title to premises to be mortgaged, has no power -to give to the loaning company " clear title insurance." Gilti- nan v. Lehman, 65 N. J. L. 668. Authority to Effect a Loan for a Particular Purpose does not empower the agent to obtain a smaller loan for a different purpose. Keegan v. Rock, (Iowa 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 805. Evidence of Agency to Borrow Money. — Evidence that a person acted as attorney for another is not competent for the purpose of es- tablishing an agency to borrow money. Keegan v. Rock, (Iowa 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 805. 1035. 7. Estrella Vineyard Co. v. Butler, 125 Cal. 232 ; Mcintosh-Huntington Co. u. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393 ; Cockerham v. Perot, 48 La. Ann. 209; Persons v. McDonald, 60 Neb. 452, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035; Wallace v. Langston, 52 S. Car. 152, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035 ; Findley v. Cunningham, 53 W. Va. 1, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035- 1036. 1. Must Be in Name of Principal, under His Seal, and Purport to Be His Seed. — Chauche w. Pare, 75 Fed. Rep. 283, 44 U. S. App. 544 ; Williams v. Paine, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 116; Lenney v. Finley, 118 Ga. 718, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1036; Walsh v. t Murphy, 167 111. 228, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1036; Mc- Colgan v. Katz, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 136; Bourne v. Campbell, 21 R. I. 490; Wallace v. Langston, 52 S. Car. 152, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1036 ; Turner v. Kingston Lumber, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 410. Bule in Equity. — Hall v. Hooper, 47 Neb. in, holding that a mortgage made by an agent in his own name is binding in, equity, if the agent had authority, and the failure to execute it in the name of the principal resulted from accident or mistake ; Turner v. Kingston Lum- ber, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 410. 1038. 1. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc, v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642, affirming (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 591 ; Rand v. Moulton, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 236, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1037; Donovan v. Welch, 11 N. Dak. 113; Turner v. Kingston Lumber, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 410. 5. See McCreary v. McCorkle, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 53. 6. De Remer v. Brown, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 634- 1039. 2. Braun v. Hess, 187 111. 283, 79 Am. St. Rep. 221, affirming 86 111. App. 544. 3. Wallace v. Langston, 52 S. Car. 152, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1038, 1039. 1041. 2. Williams v. Paine, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 116. 1042. 2. Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. McMillen, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 512. 3. Corporation Signature Followed by That of Officer. — Wilson v. Fite, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 1056, wherein the signers were held not to be bound individually. 1043. 1. Andres v. Kridler, 47 Neb. 585 ; Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Conoughy, 54 Neb. 123 ; Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. McMil- len, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 512; Campbell v. Porter, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 628 ; Barnhisel v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. S33» 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 124; Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32. Both Principal and Agent Liable. — The fact that an agent has made himself personally liable by the execution of a note does not prevent his principal from also being liable, where he re- ceived the benefit of the goods for the pur- chase of which the note was given. Froelich v. Froelich Trading Co., 120 N. Car. 39. 1046. 2. Northwestern Sav. Bank v. In- ternational Bank, 90 Mo. App. 205 ; Youngs v. Perry, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 247. 3. Patterson v. Irvin, (Ala. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 121 ; Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32. 1047. 1. Akron Second Nat. Bank v. Mid- land Steel Co., 155 Ind. 581, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1047. See also Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. Rep. 36. 1049 1058 AGENCY, Vol. I. 1049. (6) Agent as Payee and Indorser — Bank Officers. — See note 2. 1050. d. Simple Contracts Other than Negotiable Instru- ments — (i) General Rule— Intention Controlling. — See note I. 1051. See notes i, 2. e. Admissibility of Parol Evidence — (i) Instruments under- Seal — Parol Evidence Not Admissible to Discharge Agent or Charge Principal. — See note 5, 1053. (2) Negotiable Instruments — (a) Action Between the Original Parties — When Parol Evidence Admissible. — See note 2. 1053. Instrument Not Indicating Principal. — See note I. 1054. Parol Evidence Not Admissible to Discharge Agent. — See note I. (b) Action by Bona Fide Holder — When Parol Evidence -Admitted. — See note 3. 1055. 1056. (3) Other Simple Contracts. — See notes 1, 2, 3, 4. f. PUBLIC OFFICERS — Presumed to Have Contracted on Principal's Credit. — See note 2. 1057. g. Joint Agents — Private Agency. — See note 3. Contrary Intention. — See note 4. Public Agency. — See note I. 1058. 1049. 2. Brenner v. Lawrence, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 755. 1050. 1. Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 61 Am. St. Rep. 436. 1051. 1. Conant v. American Rubber Tire Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 327 ; Donovan v. Welch, 11 N. Dak. 113. 2. Edwards v. Gildemeister, 61 Kan. 141; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 61 Am. St. Rep. 436; State v. Cass County, 60 Neb. 566; Tur- ner v. Kingston Lumber, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. ipoo) 59 S. W, Rep. 410. 5. Farrar v. Lee, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 130; Blanchard v. Archer, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 459. See further infra, this title, 1141. 1, 2. 1052. 2. Simanton v. Vliet, 61 N. J. L.~ 595- 1053. 1. Manufacturers', etc., Bank v. Love, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 561 ; New York State Banking Co. v. Van Antwerp, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 38; Barnhisel v. Commer- cial Nat. Bank, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 533, 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 1 24 ; Shuey v. Adair, 18 Wash. 188, 63 Am. St. Rep. 879 ; Murphy v. Clarkson, 25 Wash. 585. See also Marx v. Luling Co-Op- erative Assoc, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 408. And see infra, this title, 1141. 3. Contra. — See Foster v. Honan, 22 Ind. App. 252. On an Issue of Reformation parol evidence has been held to be admissible. Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. McMillen, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 512. 1054. 1. Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kings- land, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32. When Not Admissible to Charge Agent. — Brackenridge v. Claridge, 91 Tex. 527. Note by Corporation, Signature by Agents Per- sonally. — Simanton v. Vliet, 61 N. J. L. 595. 3. Intention to Contract as Agent. — Society of Shakers v. Watson, 68 Fed. Rep. 730, 37 U. S. Apn. 141. Explaining Ambiguity. — Where, upon the face of the note, such an ambiguity exists as makes it impossible for the court to say what the con- tract does express, parol evidence may be ad- mitted to explain the contract, but not to mod- ify or change it so that the maker may avoid his liability. Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kings- land, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32. 1055. 1. Southern Pac. Co. u. Von Schmidt Dredge Co., 118 Cal. 368. 8. Prichard v. Budd, 76 Fed. Rep. 710, 42 U. S. App. 186; Estrella Vineyard CoC v. Butler, 125 Cal. 232; Edwards v. Gildemeister, 61 Kan. 141 ; Crawford v. Moran, 168 Mass. 446 ; White v. Dahlquist Mfg. Co., 179 Mass. 427; Tobin v. Larkin, 183 Mass. 389 ; Haubelt v. Rea, etc., Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 672 ; Rice v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 1 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) in; Belt v. Washington Water Power Co., 24 Wash. 387. 3. Prichard v. Budd, 76 Fed. Rep. 710, 42 U. S. App. 186; Powell v. Wade, 109 Ala. 95, 55 Am. St. Rep. 915; Escondido Oil, etc., Co. v. Glaser, 144 Cal. 494 ; Rice, etc., Malting Co. v. International Bank, 185 111. 422, aMrming 86 111. App. 136; State v. O'Neill, 74 Mo. App. 134; Coulter v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 163. 4. Prichard v. Budd, 76 Fed. Rep. 710, 42 U. S. App. 186; Vail v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 192 111. 567, aMrming 92 111. App. 655 ; Miller v. Early, 58 S. W. Rep. 789, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 825; Lewis v. Weidenfeld, 114 Mich. 581; Wm, Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy, 76 Minn. 364; McDonald v. Wesendonck, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 776. 1056. 2. Akron Second Nat. Bank v. Mid- land Steel Co., 155 Ind. 581, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1056. 1057. 3. Authority Conferred on a Partner- ship, — Albany Land Co. v. Rickel, 162 Ind. 222 ; McCulloch County Land, etc., Co. v. Whitefort, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 314. Assignment by One Agent to Other. — An as- sent to the assignment by one of two joint agents to the other of his interest in the con- tract of agency is equivalent to an agreement to substitute the assignee for the assignor. Al- bany Land Co. v. Rickel, 162 Ind. 222. 4. U. S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Ettenheimer, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 652. 1056. 1. Doland v. Grand Valley Irriga- tion Co., 28 Colo. 150, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1057. Vol. I. AGENCY. 1058-1063 1058. VIII. Duties and Liabilities Inter Se — 1. Of Agent to Principal a. Fidelity to Instructions — (i) General Rule — (a) in case of Remuner- ated Agent. 1059. 1060. 1061. note 3. 1063. 1063. notes i, 2. See notes 3, 5. Illustrations. — See notes 1, 3. See note 1. Intention. — See note 2. b) In Case of Unremunerated Agent. — See notes 5, 6. 2) Qualifications and Exceptions — (b) illegal or Immoral Acts. — See (d) Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Instructions. — See notes 2, 3. (3) Effect of Established Usage or Custom. — See note 4. (4) Departure from Instructions — Nature of Liability. See b. Reasonable Skill and Diligence — (i) Agency for Reward ■ (a) Rule and Its Extent. — See note 3. 105§. 3. A Request to an Agent from his principal for action in the line of the agency, is equivalent to a command. British America Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 77 Conn. 559. 5. Liability of Agent for Disobedience of Instruc- tions. — British Am. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 77 Conn. 559; Holmes v. Langston, no Ga. 861; Oxford Lake Line z/. Pensacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla. 349; Dazey v. Rolean, in 111. App. 367; Conti- nental Ins. Co. v, Clark, (Iowa 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 524 ; Northern Assur. Co. v. Borgelt, (Neb. J 903) 93 N. W. Rep. 226, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1058; Talcott v. Cow- dry, (Supm. St. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 333; Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Mather, 181 N. Y. 205. 1059. 1. Responsibility Left to Agent. — Where the responsibility of the purchaser is left to the agent's judgment, the principal is bound thereby. Peay v. Seigler, 48 S. Car. 496. 3. Violating Instructions to Sell for Cash. — An agent instructed to sell for cash only does not violate such instructions by postponing pay- ment of the price until actual delivery of the goods. Bristol v. Mente, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 67, affirmed (N. Y. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 1096. 1060. 1. Failure to Insure as Instructed. — Matteson v. Rice, 116 Wis. 328. 2. Dazey v. Roleau, 1 1 1 111. App. 367. 5. Marshall v- Ferguson, 94 Mo. App. 175. 6. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 132 Ala. 434; Battelle v. Cushing, 21 D. C. 59; Mar- shall v. Ferguson, 94 Mo. App. 175. 10/Jl. 3. Bishop v. American Preserver's Co., 157 111. 284, 48 Am. St. Rep. 317; Latra- verse v. Morgan, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 511. 1062. 2. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Fel- ton, no Ga. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1062. 3. Instructions Uncertain and Obscure. — Ox- ford Lake Line v. Pensacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla. 349; Berry v. Haldeman, in Mich. 667; Falksen v. Falls City State Bank, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 425. No Authority to Substitute Own Judgment. — The fact that an agent's instructions will admit of different interpretations does not authorize him to disregard them entirely, and substitute his own judgment in the place thereof. If he acts at all in such cases, he must follow one of the interpretations reasonably derivable from the instructions. Oxford Lake Line v. Pen- sacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla. 349- 4. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Felton, no Ga. 597, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1062 ; State v. Chilton, 49 W. Va. 453, citiitg t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1062. 1063. 1. Marshall v. Ferguson, 94 Mo. App. 175, citing \ Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1062; 101 Mo. App. 653. Measure of Damages. — In an action for breach of contract and negligence in investing in unsafe mortgages, the measure of damages is the difference in value between the mort- gages acquired and safe mortgages, measured as of the time when' the brea,ch of contract and wrong occurred. Coning v. Dodge, 167 Mass. 231. Where land was sold by an agent with full power to sell and convey, but who, without fraud, exceeded his authority, and accepted bonds instead of money in payment, the meas- ure of damages was held to be the market value of the land at the time, it appearing that the price named in the deed was fictitious, and was obtained only by reason of the agreement to accept in payment securities of doubtful value. Paul v. Grimm, 183 Pa. St. 330. j 2. Chase v. Baskerville, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 950 ; Marshall v. Ferguson, 94 Mo. App. 175- There Must Be an Entire Departure by the agent from his authority before an action for a con- version can be maintained. Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Mather, 181 N. Y. 205. May Waive Tort. — The principal may waive the tort and recover on the common counts in assumpsit. Brown v. Foster. (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 167. See also Paul v. Grimm, 165 Pa. St. 139, 44 Am. St. Rep. 648. Agent to Purchase — Refusal to Deliver. — Where an agent, after purchasing goods for his principal, refuses to deliver them, and holds them as his own, he is guilty of conversion. Nading v. Howe, 23 Ind. App. 690. 3. Rule as to Skill and Negligence of Remuner- ated Agent. — Rice v. Longfellow Bros. Co., 82 Minn. 154; Ehmer v. Title Guarantee, etc., Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.) 120; American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hagerty, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 213. Agent Not Liable for Accidental Losses. • — See Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Buffington, 131 Ala. 620; Norton v. Melick, 97 Iowa 564; Keystone 203 1065-1071 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1065. See note i. Agents to Loan or Invest. — See note 6. 1066. Agents to Collect. — See note I. 1067. Agents to SeU. — See note 2. 1068. Measure of Damages. — See note $. (b) Duty as to Insurance. — See note "J. 1069. See note i. v c . „ (c) Duty to Advise Principal of Matters Material to His Interest. — bee note 2. 1070. (2) Gratuitous Agency— (a) Ordinary Agencies. — See note I. (b) Agencies Implying Peculiar Knowledge or Skill. — See note 5. 1071. c. Good Faith and Loyalty — (i) Necessity and Extent of Rule. — See notes 1, 2, 3, 4. Watch Case Co. v. Romero, (N. Y. City Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 381. An Error of Judgment is not necessarily evi- dence of a want of skill or care. Coombs v. Beede, 89 Me. 187, 56 Am. St. Rep. 406. 1065. 1. Insurance Agents. — Shepard v. Davis, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 462. 6. Agent to loan and Invest — Insufficient Se- curities. — An agent to lend money is liable for negligence in taking -insufficient security. Van Cott v. Hull, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 89; Lowen- burg v. Wolley, 25 Can. Sup. Ct. 51. See also Ledbetter v. Vinton, 108 Ala. 644. To the same effect as Stewart v. Parnell, 147 Pa. St. 523, stated in the original note, see Wagner v. Phillips, 12 S. Dak. 335. Not Liable Unless Negligent. — An agent hav- ing authority to lend money is not liable for its loss unless he was guilty of negligence with respect to such loan. Haines u. Christie, 28 Colo. 502. 1060. 1. In Making Collections. — Omaha Nat. Bank v. KiJJer, 60 Neb. 34, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1066. See also Commercial Bank v. Red River Valley Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. 382 ; Simmons v. Looney, 41 W. Va. 738. 1067. 2. Willson v. Imperial Fertilizer Co., 67 S. Car. 467. Sale on Credit. — An agent authorized to sell on credit is not liable for conversion of goods so sold although he has failed to collect therefor. Standard Fertilizer Co. v. Van Valkenburgh, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 559. Where there is no stipulation against selling on credit, and the agent sells in good faith on credit and fails to collect, the principal can exact civil liability for the invoice price, but cannot hold the agent in arrest and bail. Southern Grocery Co. v. Davis, 132 N. Car. 96. 106§. 5. Omaha Nat. Bank v. Kiper, 60 Neb. 34. Failure to Collect Commercial Paper. — The measure of damages for the negligence of an agent to collect commercial paper is prima facie the amount of the paper, with interest. Commercial Bank v. Red River Valley Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. 382. 7. Prichard v. Deering Harvester Co., 117 Wis. 97. 1009. 1. Sandusky v. Beirne, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 272. 2. Rideri v. Salvesen, Sc. Ct. of Sess. 6 F. 64 ; Morey v. Laird, 108 Iowa 679, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1069 ; Holmes v. Cathcart, 88 Minn. 213, 97 Am. St. Rep. 513, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1609; Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. S33,~citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 [1069] ; Bush t>. Froelich, 14 S. Dak. 62; Dorr v. Camden, 55 W. Va. 226. Agent Must Communicate Facts Affecting Value of Land to Be Sold by Him. — Hall v. Gambril), 88 Fed. Rep. 709; Prince v. Dupuy, 163 111. 417- 107©. 1. Ordinary Agencies Not Implying Peculiar Knowledge or Skill. — Charlesworth v. Whitlow, (Ark. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 423, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1070. See also Samonset v. Mesnager, 108 Cal. 354. An Agent Without Remuneration to Lend the money of another is guilty of gross negligence in taking no security for the loan. Samonset v. Mesnager, 108 Cal. 354. 5. Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662. 1071 1. Largey v. Bartlett, 18 Mont. 265 ; Townsley v. Bankers' L. Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 232, quoting t Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1071 ; West End Real Estate Co. v. Nash, 51 W. Va. 341, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1071. Fraud. — A positive affirmation of the quality of lands as of one's personal knowledge when he has no knowledge on the subject, whereby his employer is misled and injured, renders the agent making it liable. Miller v. John, m 111. App. 56. Bribe, — The fact of • the agent having been bribed or tempted to betray his principal is suf- ficient to entitle the principal to repudiate the transaction, and it is not necessary to show the actual effect of the bribe or gift upon the agent. Alger v. Anderson, 78 Fed. Rep. 729. 2. St. Louis Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Edi- son General Electric Co., 64 Fed. Rep. 997; Sessions v. Payne, 113 Ga. 955, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1071;. Townsley v. Bankers' L. Ins. Co., 56 N. V. App. Div. 232, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1071 ; Gillespie v. Weiss, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 177, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encsjc of Law (2d ed.) 1071, 8 Pa. Dist. 170, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 07 1 ; Wallace v. Oceanic Packing Co., 25 Wash. 143 ; Atty.-Gen. v. Halifax, 36 Nova Scotia 177, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1071. 3. Gillespie v. Weiss, 8 Pa. Dist. 170, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1071. 4. Calmon v. Sarraille, 142 Cal. 638 ; Gillespie v. Weiss, 8 Pa. Dist. 170, citing 1 Am. and Eng. 204 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1072 1073 10758. (2) Making Profit Out of Agency. — See notes 1, 2, 3, 4. 1073. Gratuities. — See note 2. (3) Acting for Both Parties — Eule stated. — See note 4. Encvc. op Law (2d ed.) 1071 ; Triplett v. Woodward, 98 Va. 187. 1072. 1, Agent May Not Seal in Agenoy for His Own Benefit — England. — Bulfield v. Tour- nier, 15 Reports 176. Canada. — Earle v. Burland, 27 Ont. App. 540 ; Jones v. Linde British Refrigeration Co., 32 Ont. 191 ; Martel v. Pageau, 9 Quebec Super. Ct. 175. United States. — McKinley v. Williams, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 94. California. — Calmon v. Sarraille, 142 Cal. 638. Colorado. — Calumet Gold Min., etc., Co. v. Phillips, 31 Colo. 267, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1072 ; Whitehead v. Lynn, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 1119. Georgia. — Sessions v. Payne, 113 Ga. 955, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.J 1072. Illinois. — Tilden v. Blackwell, 94 111. App. 605 ; James T. Hair Co. v. Daily, 161 111. 379. Kentucky. — McDoel v. Ohio Valley Imp., etc., Co., (Ky. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 175. Maryland. — Vansant v. State, 96 Md. no, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1072. Minnesota. — Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. 533 ; Farmers' Warehouse Assoc, v. Montgom- ery, 92 Minn. 194; Schick v. Suttle, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 217. Missouri. — Smith v. Taylor, 57 Mo. App. 668 ; Patterson v. Missouri Glass Co., 72 Mo. App. 492 ; Marshall v. Ferguson, 94 Mo. App. I7S- Nebraska. — Barbar v. Martin, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 722. New York. — Carruthers v. Diefendorf, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 31. Pennsylvania. — ■ Graham v. Cilmmings, 208 Pa. St. 516; Humbird v. Davis, 210 Pa. St. 311. Texas. — Moore v. Waco Bldg. Assoc, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 68. Utah. — Argentine Min. Co. v. Benedict, 18 Utah 183. Agreement for Profits as Compensation. — If there is a fair understanding, when the agency is created, that the agent shall have certain profits as compensation for his services, he will be entitled to receive them by virtue of the contract. O'Day v. Conn, 131 Mo. 321. 2. McKinley v. Williams, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 94 ; Nading v. Howe, 23 Ind. App. 690 ; Densmore v. Searle, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 45. Measure of Belief . — The measure of the prin- cipal's relief in equity is the exact amount of the agent's profit. Loudenslager v. Wood- bury Heights Land Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 556. 8. Selling for Higher Price than That Named. — Mulvane v. O'Brien, 58 Kan. 463. 4. Purchasing for Price Less than That Named by Principal. — Kuhlman v. Burns, 117 Cal. 469; Callaway v. Wilson, 141 Cal. 421 ; Salsbury v. Ware, 183 111. 505 ; Yeaney v. Keck. 183 Pa. St. 532; Hindle v. Holcomb, 34 Wash. 336. 1073. 2. Compare Barbar v. Martin, (Neb. W<$ 93 N, W, Rep, 7??, toWJPf **# W W^ for one party cannot appropriate to himself a fee paid by the other party to the contract for bringing about the contract. Gift After Transaction Completed. — The prin- cipal is not entitled to a gratuity given to the agent after the transaction is fully com- pleted. Lamb Knit-Goods Co. v. Lamb, 119 Mich. 568. Gratuity Vitiates Contract. — Any gratuity given to an agent of the buyer by the seller for the purpose of influencing the execution of his agency vitiates a contract which is subse- quently made by the agent, as presumptively made under that influence, or one subsequently made by the buyer himself, if in any material degree effected through the influence of the corrupted agent. Alger v. Keith, (C. C. A.) 105 Fed. Rep. 105. 4. General Rule — Agent May Not Act for Both Parties — England. — Bartram v. Lloyd, 88 L. T. N. S. 286, 90 L. T. N. S. 357- United States. — Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. Rep. 427, 31 U. S. App. 340; Donovan v. Cam- pion, 85 Fed. Rep. 71, 56 U. S. App. 388. California. — Blood v. La Serena Land, etc., Co., 113 Cal. 22i. Colorado. — British America Assur. Co. v. Cooper, 6 Colo. App. 25. Georgia. — Ramspeck v. Pattillo, 104 Ga. 772, 69 Am. St. Rep. 197. Illinois. — Bunn v. Keach, 214 111. 259, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1073 ; Black v. Miller, 71 111. App. 342. Iowa. — Morey v. Laird, 108 Iowa 670. Kentucky. — McDoel v. Ohio Valley Imp., etc., Co., (Ky. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 175. Maryland. — Baltimore Sugar Refining Co. v. Campbell, etc., Co., 83 Md. 36. Missouri. — Harper v. Fidler, 105 Mo. App. 680. Nebraska. — Judkins v. Burr, (Neb. 1901) 93 N. W. Rep. 47S- New York. — Carr v. National Bank, etc., Co., 167 N. Y. 375, 82 Am. St. Rep. 725. Virginia. — Ferguson v. Gooch, 94 Va. i . West Virginia. — West End Real Estate Co. v. Nash, 51 W. Va. 341, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1073. Property Sold at Public Auction. — Union Planters' Bank v. Edgell, (Miss. 1903) 33 So. Rep. 409. Effect of Custom or Usage. — The rule cannot be defeated by any custom or usage of real- estate agents or brokers which is plainly of their own creation, for their convenience and advantage in the settlement of speculative deal- ings. Ferguson v. Gooch, 94 Va. 1. The Contract Is Voidable, but Not Void, unless the conduct of the person acting in a dual relation amounted to fraud. Salem Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Consol. Iron Mines, (C. C. A.) ii2 Fed. Rep. 239. If the Principal Refuses to Comply with His Contraot with his agent, the latter may perhaps consider the contract terminated, and accept employment adverse to the principal. Asher v. Becker, (Ky, J897) 4* §, Vf, Rep, ?f, «P? 1074-1088 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1074. See note i. Limitation — Where Interests Not Conflicting. — See note 2. Limitation — Where Principals Consent. — See note 3. 1075. (5) Uniting Opposite Characters of Buyer and Seller — {a) State- ment of Eule. — See note 3. 1077. (b) Agent to Purchase, Purchasing from Himself. — See notes I, 2. (c) Agent to Sell, Purchasing for Himself. — See note 3. 1©78. See note 1. 1079. Purchase Through Third Party. — See note 2. 1080. Character of Sale Immaterial. — See note I. Sale Not Void. — See note 4. (d) Adoption of Transaction by Principal — Implied. — See note 8. 1081. (e) Dealing Directly with the Principal — Eule Stated. — See note I. Must Make Full Disclosure. — See note 2. 1082. Presumption of Invalidity. — See note I. (6) Agent to Purchase, Purchasing for Himself. — See note 5. 1074. 1. Goodell v. Hurlbut, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 77. 2. German Ins. Co. v. Independent School Dist., 80 Fed. Rep. 366, 49 U. S. App. 271 ; Nevada Nickel Syndicate v. National Nickel Co., 96 Fed. Rep. 133 ; Cunningham v. State, 105 Ga. 676; Casey v. Donovan, 65 Mo. App. 521. 3. Consent of Principals. — Pine Mountain Iron, etc., ' Co. v. Bailey, 94 Fed. Rep. 258, 36 C. C. A. 229; Nevada Nickel Syndicate v. Na- tional Nickel Co., 96 Fed. Rep. 133; Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662 ; Patterson v. Van Loon, 186 Pa. St. 367 ; Valley Glass Co. v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 254; Baldwin v. Root, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 630. 1075. 3. General Eule — Agent May Not Be Both Buyer and Seller. — Pine Mountain Iron, etc., Co. v. Bailey, 94 Fed. Rep. 258, 36 C. C. A. 229; Mcintosh-Huntington Co. v. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393 ; Godfrey 11. Dutton, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) .117, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1075 ; Baltimore Sugar Refining Co. v. Campbell, etc., Co., 83 Md. 36; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11, 156; Blais v. Brazeau, 25 R. I. 420, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1075. 1077. 1. Whitehead v. Lynn, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 1119; Oliver v. Lansing, 48 Neb. 338. But the Principal Will Not Be Permitted to Keep the Property and compel a return of the money paid. Antiseptic Fiber Package Co. v. Klein, 119 Mich. 225. 2. Baird w.Ryan, (Ky. 1896) 35 S.W. Rep. 132. 3. Hodgson v. Raphael, 105 Ga. 480; Prince v. Dupuy, 163 111. 417; Rich v. Black, 173 Pa. St. 92. Raffle. — It has been held that an agent to sell cannot acquire title by raffling the prop- erty and becoming the winner at the raffle. Hodgson v. Raphael, 105 Ga. 480. Eule Applies to Leases. — An agent to lease the lands of his principal, is not authorized to lease them to himself. Clendenning v. Hawk, 10 N. Dak. 90. The Agent of the Vendor Being the President or Agent of the Purchaser authorizes the principal to repudiate the transaction. Whitley v. James, (Ga. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 600. 1078. 1. Quertermous v. Taylor, 62 Ark. 598; Green v. Peeso, 92 Iowa 261; Fisher v. Lee, 94 Iowa 611; Rogers v. French, (Iowa 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 767; Anderson v. Grand Forks First Nat. Bank, ^ N. Dak. 80 ; Campbell v. Beard, (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 747. Agent for Control of Property Buying at Mort- gage Sale. — Kimball v. Ranney, 122 Mich. 160, 80 Am. St. Rep. 548. 1073. 2. Agent Purchasing Through Third Person. — Moore v. Petty, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. 668; Webb ■ Briggs v. Foster, (C. C. A.) 137 Fed. Rep. 773; Quarg v. Scher, 136 Cal. 406 ; West Florida Land Co. v. Studebaker, 37 Fla. 28; O'Don-. nell, etc., Bavarian Brewing Co. v. Farrar, 62 111. App. 471 ; Campbell v. Park, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 861 ; Taylor v. Commercial Bank, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 458; Chisholm v. Eisenhuth, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 134; Freyer v. McCord, 165 Pa. St. 539 ; McDonald v. Cole, 46 W. Va. 186, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1159; Milburn v. Wilson 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 481. • 1160. X. Hindman v. Louisville First Nat. Bank, 112 Fed. Rep. 931, 50 C. C. A. 623; Williamson v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 644; Belmont v. Talbot, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 588; Cunningham v. Wathen, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 553 ; Smith v. Hildenbrand, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 129; Schram v. Strouse, (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) 28 S. W. Rep. 262; Hoyer p, Ludington, 100 Wis. 441 ; Godfrey v. Schneck, 105 Wis. 568. Where the Act of Executing an Authority Is Itself a Representation of the Existence of Certain Facts. — -New York Nat. Banking Assoc. Bank v. American Dock, etc., Co., 143 N. Y. 559 ; Merchants', etc., Cotton Oil Co, v. Lufkin Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 651. Representation that Corporation Is Partnership^ — The false statement of an agent of a cor- poration appointed to buy timber, in making the contract, that the company is a partner- ship does not bind its members or the cor- poration to liability as partners. McDonald v. Cole, 46 W. Va. 186. Representations as to Financial Standing of Principal, — Representations by an agent as to the financial standing of his principal will not bind the latter in the absence of evidence that the agent was authorized to make such representations. Ralph v. Fon Dersmith, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 618. 1161. 1. Trankla v. McLean, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y-) 221, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1158 [1161] : Forster v. Wilshusen? (C. PI. Gen. , T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 520 ; Milburn v. Wilson, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 481. 2. Boyer-w. Coxen, 92 Md. 368, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1161; Hall v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 44 W, Va. 36, 67 Am. St. Rep. 757, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1161. 1163. 1. Neal v. Andrews, (Tex. Civ, App. 1 goo) 60 S. W. Rep. 459. Vol. I. AGENCY. 1164-1170 1164. 1165. 1166. See note 3. 1167. 1168. TRACTS — note 1. 1170. it. When Agent Is Ostensible Principal. — See note I. See note 1, b) When Agent Has Beneficial Interest. — See note 3. 2) In Tort — (a) 'For Injury to Principal's Property in Agent's Possession. — d. Defenses to Action Brought by Agent. — See note 3. 4. Of Third Parties to Principal — a. On the Agent's Con- (1) Principal May Maintain Action — (a) When Disclosed. — See Equities Against Agent. — See note 2. (b) When Undisclosed — aa. In General. — See note 3. it. Subject to Equities. — See notes I, 2. 1163. 2. Tustin Fruit Assoc, v. Earl Fruit Co., (Cal. 1898) 53 Pac. Rep. 693; Spence v. Wilson, 102 Ga. 762. 1164. 1. Carter v. Southern R. Co., 11 1 Ga. 38 ; Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Marchman, 121 Ga. 235 ; Simons v. Wittman, (Mo. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 791 ; Stewart v. Gregory, 9 N. Dak. 618, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1164; National Bank v. Nolting, 94 Va. 263. 1165. 1. Stockbarger v. Sain, 69 111. App. 436. 3, See Whiting v. Wm. H. Crawford Co., 93 Md. 390. 1166. 3. Mitchell v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., in Ga. 760, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) n 66. 1167. 3. Holden v. Rutland R. Co., 73 Vt. 317. 1168. 1. Rea v. Barker, 135 Fed. Rep. 890 ; Randolph v. Wheeler, 182 Mo. 145. Eight Hot Affected by Agent's Qualified Title. — The right of the principal to collect the proceeds of a sale of goods is not impaired by the fact that the agents who made the sale had a qualified title in the goods as security for the payment of obligations assumed for their principal. Moline Malleable Iron Co. -v. York Iron Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 66, 53 U. S- App. 580. 2. Moline Malleable Iron Co. v. York Iron Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 66, 53 U. S. App. 580. 3. England. — ■ Durant v. Roberts, (1900) 1 Q. B. 629, 82 L. T. N. S. 217. United States. — Prichard v. Budd, 76 Fed. Rep. 710, 42 U. S. App. 186; Morris v. Chesa- peake, etc., Steamship Co., 125 Fed. Rep. 62. Alabama. — Powell v. Wade, 109 Ala. 95, 55 Am. St. Rep. 915; McFadden v. Hender- son, 128 Ala. 221 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Millsap, 135 Ala. 415-; Manker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 137 Ala. 292; Brooks v. Cook, (Ala. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 641. Georgia. — Dodd Grocery Co. v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 112 Ga. 685, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1168; McConnell v. East Point Land Co., 100 Ga. 129. Illinois. — Stockbarger v. Sain, 69 111. App. 436. Iowa. — Young v. Lohr, 118 Iowa 624, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1168. Massachusetts. — Foster v. Graham, 166 Mass. 202. Missouri. — Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422; State v. O'Neill, 74 Mo. App. 134. New York.— Johnson v. Doll, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 11 Misc. (N. Y.) 345; Wiehle v. Saffold, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 562; Henderson v. McNally, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 134; Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461. Oregon. — Kitchen v. Holmes, 42 Oregon 252. Texas. — Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 460 ; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 53, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1168. West Virginia. — Coulter v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 163. See also Real Estate Invest. Co. v. Richmond, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 151. Principal Must Show Agency. — McConnell v. East Point Land Co., 100 Ga. 129. Agent's Contract with Common Carrier. — Southern R. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437 ; Cen- tral of Georgia R. Co. v. James, 117 Ga. 832; Trimble u. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 403. See also Talcott v. Wa- bash R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.)) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 443. 1170. 1. Munroe v. Whitehouse, 90 Me. 139; Bertoli v. Smith, 69 Vt. 425, the latter case holding that one who purchases from an agent who has neither the possession of the goods nor the muniments of title cannot de- fend against the undisclosed principal by show- ing that he credited the goods on a claim against the agent, supposing that he was the owner. 2. United States. — Buchanan v. Cleveland Linseed-Oil Co., (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 88, Morris v. Chesapeake, etc., Steamship Co., 125 Fed. Rep. 62. Connecticut. — Sullivan v. Shailor, 70 Conn. 733- Georgia. — McConnell v. East Point Land Co., 100 Ga. 129. Illinois. — Wiser v. Springside Coal Min. Co., 94 111. App. 471. Maine. — Munroe v. Whitehouse, 90 Me. 139. Massachusetts. — Foster v. Graham, 166 Mass. 202; Cushman v. Snow, 186 Mass. 169. Minnesota. — Baxter v. Sherman, 73 Minn. 434, 72 Am. St. Rep. 631. New York. — Pollacek v. Scholl, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 319. Ohio. — Hitchcock v. Kelley, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 180, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 808. Pennsylvania. — Finn-Vipond Constr. Co. v. Wolf, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 317; Belfield v. Na- tional Supply Co., 189 Pa. St. 189, 69 Am. St. Rep. 799. Texas. — Pacific Express Co. v. Redman, 323 1171-1176 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1171. Third Party Must Show tack of Knowledge. — See note I. cc. Exceptions. — See notes 2, 4. 1173. See note 1. b. For Property Wrongfully Transferred to Third Party — (1) When Principal May Recover — (a) In General. — See notes 2, 3. 1173. See note 1. 1174. (b) Property Bartered, Pledged, or Mortgaged. — See note 2. (0) Property Used to Pay Agent's Debt — aa. By Agent. — See note 5. 1175. 66. By Seizure under Execution or Attachment. — See note I. (d) Securities. — See note 2. 1176. c. For Money Wrongfully Paid to or Appropriated by Third Party — (i) When Principal May Recover — (a) in General. — See note 1. (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 60 S. \V. Rep. 677; Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 460. 1171. 1. Baxter v. Sherman, 73 Minn. 434, 72 Am. St. Rep. 631; Mull v. Ingalls, (County Ct.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 80. 2. Melcher v. Kreiser, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 362; McColgan v. Katz, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 136; Smith v. Pierce, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 60 N. Y. Supp. ion; Ander- son v. Conner, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 384. 4. Wiehle v. Safford, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 562.. Undisclosed Principal One with Whom the Other Party Would Not Have Dealt. — See Real Estate Invest. Co. v. Richmond, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 151- When it is clearly shown, either from the terms of the agreement or by the attendant circumstances, that the contract was with the agent personally, the principal, even though known, does not become a party to the con- tract, and cannot sue upon it in his own name. Sullivan v. Shailor, 70 Conn. 733. 1172. 1. See Temple v. Pennell, 123 Iowa 729, holding that if an agent makes a contract to subserve some purpose of his own, and deals with the property as though he were the owner thereof, he alone can enforce it. 2. Gentry v. Singleton, (Indian Ter. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 898, reversing 3 Indian Ter. 516 ; Worthington v. Vette, 77 Mo. App. 445; Gar-' den v. Neily, 31 Nova Scotia 89. 3. Henderson v. Williams, (1895) 1 Q. B. 521, 14 Reports 375 ; Connally v. McConnell, 1 Penn. (Del.) 133; Continental Tobacco Co. v. Camp- bell, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 125 ; Pacific Express Co. v. Carroll County Bank, 66 Mo. App. 275, 2 Mo. Apo. Rep. 1295 ; Sage v. Shep- ard, etc., Lumber Co., 4 N. Y. App. Div. 290 ; Simar v. Shea, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 84; Ben- nett v. Williamson, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 590, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. 107, 2 Ohio Dec. 134; Bradley v. Fike, s Ohio Cir. Dec. 50 ; Schleicher v. Armstrong, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 327 ; Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 460. Prerequisites to Create Estoppel in Principal. — The doctrine of estoppel has no application where everything is equally known to all the parties, or where the party sought to be es- topped was ignorant of the facts out of which his rights sprung, or where the other party was not influenced by the acts asserted in estoppel. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 225. Mere Possession as Indication of Title or Au- thority. — Harris Loan Co. v. Elliott, etc., Book- Typewriter Co., no Ga. 302; Wilson v. Loeb, 69 111. App. 445 ; Peerless Mach. Co. v. Gates, 61 Minn. 124; Gussner v. Hawks, (N. Dak. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 898; Roberts v. Francis, (Wis. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1076. Necessary to Refund Price Paid. — A principal cannot recover property which his agent was authorized to sell, and did sell, merely because he sold for less than he had authorized him to take, although that fact was not known to the purchaser, without refunding or offering to refund the amount that was paid. Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md. 434. 1173. 1. Farquharson v. King, (1901) 2 K. B. 697. Factor's or Agent's Acts. — Cairns v. Page, .165 Mass. 552, construing the Massachusetts statute. 1174. 2. Wycoff, Seaman & Benedict v. Davis, (Iowa 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 349. 5. Barnett v. Daw, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 202, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1174; Hoffman v. Kramer, 123 N. Car. 579, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 1 74; Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 460, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1174. See also Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. Assumpsit Will Not Lie in such a case, where the third person has not sold the property. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Waldo, 128 Mich. 135. 1175. 1. Jacob v. Watkins, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 475. West Virginia. — Morris v. Clifton Forge Grocery Co., 46 W. Va. 197. Mississippi. — Meridian Land, etc., Co. v. Onn^nd, 82 Miss. 758. In Virginia a statute similar to those of West Virginia and Mississippi is in force. Hoge v. Turner, 96 Va. 624. 2. Gearon v. Kearney, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 285 ; Montgomery v. Pitts- burg Lodge, No. 336, 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 295 ; Garvin v. Pettee, 15 S. Dak. 266. 1176. 1. Grant v. Gold Exploration, etc., Syndicate, (1900) 1 0. B. 233, 82 L. T. N. S. 5 ; Hovenden v. Millhoff, 83 L. T. N. S. 41 ; Cohen v. Kuschke, 83 L. T. N. S. 102 ; Central Stock, etc., Exch. v. Bendinger, 109 Fed. Rep. 926, 48 C. C. A. 726 ; Guernsey v. Davis, 67 Kan. 378 ; Jacoby v. Payson, 85 Hun (N. Y.) 367; National Express Co, v, Hcmgh, 5224 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1177-1181 1177. (b) Proceeds of Bestrictively Indorsed Paper. See note I. (o) Honey Lost on Wager Contracts. — See note 2. (2) Principal May Follow Fundi — See note 3. 1178. e. For Breach^ of Warranty and Misrepresentation — Principal May Recover Damages. — See note 2. f. For Surreptitious Dealings of Third Party with AGENT — Principal's Rights. — See note 3. 1179. See note 1. 1180. h. Principal's Right of Agtion Superior to Agent's — (1) In General. — See note 4. i. Defenses to Principal's Action — (i) Payment, to, Agent. — See note 6; (2) Fraudulent Acts of Agent. — See note 7. 1181.. [}". Negligence of Agent. — See note ia.~\ X. Ratification — 1, Nature. — See note 2. Ratification of Contract — No New Consideration. — See note 3. 1 Ohio Dec. 169, 3 Ohio N. P. 289; Young v. Glendenning, 8 Pa. Dist. 57, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 113. Right of- Principal Against Bank. Receiving Deposit from Agent. — A bank cannot be held to account to the owner of a fundi where such fund has been deposited by an agent, in his own name and, paid out upon his check, with- out knowledge by the bank of, any want of power on the parti of the agent. Martin v. Kansas Nat. Bank, 66 Kan. 655. Compare Henry v. Allen, 151 N. Y. 1. 117-7. 1, Indorsement Not Indicating Re- striction. — See Wedge Mines Co. v. Denver Nat. Bank, (Colo, App. 1903) 73 Pac. Rep. 873. 2. Central Stock, etc., Exch. v. Bendinger, 109 Fed. Rep. 926, 48 C. C. A, 7^26; Thomp- son v. Hynds,, 15. Utah 389. 3. Central Stock, etc., Exch. v. Bendinger, 109 Fed. Rep. 926, 48 C. C. A. 736 ; Pearce v. Dill, 149 Ind. 136 ; Harding v. Field, 1 N. Y. Apr. Divi 391 ; Phelan v. Downs, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.). 31 Misc. (N; Y.) 518; Steven- son v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. 1178. 2. Principal Denying Agency. — It is not competent for the principal to deny the agency, and to deny his responsibility to the agent for the loss, and still take advantage of representations made to the agent and sue the person making such representations for damages. U. S. Mortgage, etc., Co. v. Cruteher, 169 Mo. 444. 3. Shipway v-. Broadwtood, (1,899), * Q- B. 369, 80 L. T. N. S. 11. 1179. 1. Shipway v. Broadwood, (1899) 1 Q. B. 369, 80 L. T. N. S. 1 1 ; Baltimore Sugar- Refining Co. v: Campbelli etc., Co., 83 Mid. 36 ; Dorrah Wi Hill, 73 Miss. 7871 Transaction. Not Amounting to Fraud. — - The principal cannot avoid a contract for fraud where it appears that the third party agreed to share the profits with the agent, not with the intention of inducing him to depart from his duty to his principal, but submitted to it as an exaction. Yeliow Poplar Lumber Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fedi Rep. 39, 48. C. C. A. 204. 1180. 4. See Moiine Malleable Iron Co. v.. Yojtk Iron Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 66, 53 U. S. App. 580.. 6. Shine v. KenneaJy, 102 111. App. 473; National Mortgt, etc.,. Co. v. Lash, 5 Kan. App. f>33 ; Cheshire Provident Inst. v. Feusner, 63 J Supp. C. of L.— 15 M5 Neb. 682; Cheshire Provident Inst. y. Gibson, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 243 ; Sage v. Bur- ton, 84, Hun. (,N- Y.) 26.7; Maxfield, v. Car- penter, 84 Hun, (N. Y.) 450; Schroeder v. Waters, 173 Pa, St. 422; Brown v. William Clark Co., 22 R. I. 36. Promissory Note. — If the maker of a note pays, other than, the rightful owner, he cannot rely on facts unknown to him, and not influ- encing his action, as an estoppel; but if- the money has reachedi the hands of an agent au- thorized to collect for the holder, such, pay- ment will, be a satisfaction of the debt. Stuart v. Stonebraker, 63 Neb. 554; Pochin v. Knoebel, 63 Neb. 768 ; Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v., Haskell, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 233; Boyd v. Pape, (Neb. igo2) 90 N. W. Rep. 646, 7. Honaker v. Board of Education, 42 W. Va. 170, 57 Am. St, Rep 847, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1180. But the Fraudulent Representations Must Have Been Relied On by the third< party. Chicago Bldg., etc., Co. v. Hjgginbotham, (Miss, 1901) 29 So. Rep. 79. 1181. la. A principal cannot recover dam- ages from, a third person on account of the neglect of his own agent. Brown, v. St. John Trust Co., (Kan. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 37. 2, Larsen, v. Thuringia American Ins. Co., 208 111. 166, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d. ed.) 1181, affirming 108 Ind, App. 420, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 181 ; Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85. In an action on contract made by an alleged agent of the defendant, evidence of communi- cations between defendant and the agent are not admissible where it is claimed that the agent had authority either express or implied to make the contract, and no question of rati- fication of an unauthorized act is involved. American Telephone, etc., Co. v. Green, (Ind. I1905)' 73 N. E. Rep. 707. The Term Ratification applies only where the act done was beyond the scope of the agency. Sparkman v. Supreme Council; etc., 57 S. Car. 16. 3. Lynch v. Smyth, 23 Colo. 103 ; Smyth v. Lynch, 7 Colo. App. 383 ; Schneck v. Jefferson- ville, 152 Ind. 204, citing 1 Am. and Eng, Encyc; of Law (2d ed;) 1181. 1183-1185 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1183. 1183. 1184. 1185. Ratification After Disavowal. — See notes 2, 3- 2. Who May Ratify. — See note 4. A Corporation. — See note 5. Ultra Vires Acts of Corporation. — See note 6. Ratification by Agents. — See note 4. 3. What Acts May Be Ratified— a. In GENERAL. — See notes 3, 4. Void and Voidable Acts. — See notes 5, 6. Contracts Tainted with Fraud. — See note 8. b. Torts. — See note 1. What Amounts to Adoption of Tort. — See note 2. The Rule Is Otherwise where there is no claim of agency, but the ratification is of the act of a mere stranger, done on his own ac- count and in his own name. Plumb v. Cur- tis, 66 Conn. 154. This, however, is not rati- fication, properly speaking. See infra, this title, 1089. 1 ; and see Ratify — Ratification. 1182. 2. Distinction Between Ratification and Estoppel. — Steffens v. Nelson, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 871. 3. An Option to Purchase Within a Limited . Time which has been accepted by an unau- thorized agent is not legally accepted un- less the act of the agent is ratified by the principal before the , expiration of the time limited. Dibbins v. Dibbins, (1896) 2 Ch. 348, 75 L. T. N. S. 137. 4. Hollingsworth v. Hill, 116 Ala. 184; Hickox v. Fels, 86 111. App. 216; In re Sou- lard, 141 Mo. 642. An Executor who could not authorize a sale of decedent's property cannot ratify such sale. Krumdick v. White, 107 Cal. 37. See also Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594. A Married Woman may ratify the unauthor- ized act of an attorney in renewing an in- dorsement of a note made by her before her marriage. Harrisburg Nat. Bank v. Bradshaw, 178 Pa. St. 180. When Agency Undisclosed. — The fact that the agent did not disclose his agency to the third party will not prevent a ratification by the principal. Durant v. Roberts, (1900) 1 Q. B. 629. After Disposal of Interest in Subject-matter. — One who has parted with all his interest in property cannot ratify the' subsequent act of his agent in disposing of it. McDonald u. McCoy, 121 Cal. 55. The Person in Whose Name a Contract Is Made may ratify, even though such contract is with- out his actual authority, and although the agent has acted with fraudulent intent caus- ing the other party to repudiate the transac- tion. Tiedemann v. Ledermann, (1899) 2 Q. B. 66, 81 L. T. N. S. 191. 5. Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. Rep. 427, 31 U. S. App. 340; Blood v. La Serena Land, etc., Co., 113 Cal. 221; Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85 ; Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oregon 1 ; Steiner v. Polk County, 40 Oregon 124; Haynie v. American Trust Invest. Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 860; North Point Consol. Irrigation Co. v. Utah, etc., Canal Co., 16 Utah 246, 67 Am. St. Rep. 607; Moody, etc., Co. v. M. E. Church, 99 Wis. 49; Appel v. State, 9 Wyo. 187, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1182. $ee also Hall v., Coijpord, 71 N, H. 367, per ?$ Rennick, J., dissenting, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1182 et seq. Corporate Action Necessary. — In order to bind a corporation by ratification, corporate action of some kind is necessary. Spinks v. Athens Sav. Bank, 108 Ga. 376. No Vote of ratification is necessary. Sim- mons v. Shaw, 172 Mass. 516. 6. Park Hotel Co. v. St. Louis Fourth Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 742; Anglo- American Land, etc., Co. v. Lombard, (C. C. A.) 132 Fed. Rep. 721 ; Thompson v. West, 59 Neb. 677 ; Metropolitan Stock Exch. v. Lyndon- ville Nat. Bank, 76 Vt. 303. See also Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Hotel Co., 80 Minn. 165, 81 Am. St. Rep. 249, per Brown, J., dissenting, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 182. 11 §3. 4. Fay v. Slaughter, 194 111. 157. 88 Am. St. Rep. 148, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1183, reversing 94 111. App. mjHartman Steel Co. v. Hoag, 104 Iowa 269 ; Deffenbaugh v. Jackson Paper-Mfg. Co., 120 Mich. 242 ; Bullard v. De Groff, 59 Neb. 783 ; Oliver v. Rahway Ice Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 596 ; Fargo v. Cravens, 9 S. Dak. 646, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 1 83. 1184. 3. Acts Not Done in Name or Behalf of Principal. — In Wycoff , Seamans & Benedict v. Davis, (Iowa 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 349, it was held that the doctrine of ratification had no application to a case where the agent was acting for himself only and did nothing in the principal's name or behalf. 4. Athy Guardians v. Murphy, (1896) 1 Ir. R. 65 ; Hughes County v. Ward, 81 Fed. Rep. 314; Larsen v. Thuringia American Ins. Co., 208 111. 166, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1184, affirming 108 111. App. 429, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1184; Alexander v. Wade, 106 Mo. Auu. 141. 5. Rawlings -v. Neal, 126 N. Car. 275 ; Nash- ville First Nat. Bank v. Shook, 100 Tenn. 436. 6. Kelly v. Burke, 132 Ala. 235; Grant v. Miller, 107 Ga. 804. 8. See Henry Christian Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Walton, 181 Pa. St. 201, 59 Am. St. Rep. 636. The Fact that the Third Party Repudiated the contract, and that the agent acted fraudulently in making it, will not prevent subsequent rati- fication by the principal. Tiedemann v. Leder- mann, (1899) 2 Q. B. 66. 1185. 1. Creson v. Ward, 66 Ark. 209, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc, of Law (2d ed.) 1185; Brown v. Webster City, 115 Iowa 511. 2. Dodge v, BlMfr, (Kp,' i399) M S A W, Rep, 1939,, Vol. I. AGENCY. 1185-1189 - View that Forgery Cannot Be Batifled. 1 1 85. c . Criminal Acts — Forgery ■ — See note 3. 11 87. View that Forgery May Be Ratified. — ■ See note I. 1188. 4. Prerequisites to Valid Ratification — b. Acts Done in Capac- ity of Agent. — See note 1. 1 1 89. c. Knowledge of Material Facts. — See note 2. Acceptance of Benefits with full knowledge of the tort will amount to ratification. Kilpatrick v. Haley, 66 Fed. Rep. 133, 27 U. S. App. 752. Where an Act Is Simply in Excess of Authority, mere approval of the wrong is generally held to be sufficient. Brown v. Webster City, 115 Iowa 511. 1185. 3. Kelchner v. Morris, 75 Mo. App. 588 ; Henry Christian Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Walton, 181 Pa. St. 201, 59 Am. St. Rep. 636. 1187. 1. Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C) 1, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1187; Fay v. Slaughter, 194 111. 157, 88 Am. St. Rep. 148, reversing 94 111. App. in, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 185, as to the contrary doctrine in some jurisdictions. Doubtful State of Facts. — Ratification of a forged instrument cannot be implied from a doubtful state of facts. Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 164 111. 323. 1188. 1. Keighley v. Durant, (1901) A. C. 240; Thompson v. Brown, 121 Ga. 814, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1188; Ferris v. Snow, 130 Mich. 254, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 188; Herd v. Buffalo Bank, 66 Mo. App. 643 ; Dumois v. Hill, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 525 ; Rawlings v. Neal, 126 N. Car. 275, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 187; Williams v. Stearns, 59 Ohio St. 28; Backhaus v. Buells, 43 Oregon 558; American Nat. Bank v. Cruger, 91 Tex. 446; Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402. See also Woodman v. Wicker, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 411. Agency Need Not Be Known to Third Person. — It is necessary that the act should have been done by one who was in fact acting as an agent, but it is not necessary that he should have been understood to be such by the party with whom he was dealing. Hayward v. Langmaid, 181 Mass. 426. 1189. 2. United States. — Starr v. Gal- gate Ship Co., (C. C. A.) 68 Fed. Rep. 234; Henry u. Lane, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 243. Alabama. — Brown v. Bamberger, no .Ala. 342- Arizona. — McGlassen v. Tyrrell, (Ariz. 1896) 44 Pac. Rep. 1088. Arkansas. — Martin v. Hickman, 64 Ark. 217, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1189. California. — Brown v. Rouse, 104 Cal. 672; Ballard v. Nye, (Cal. 1902) 69 Pac. Rep. 481; Lambert v. Gerner, 142 Cal. 399. Colorado. — Extension Gold Min., etc., Co. v. Skinner, 28 Colo. 237 ; Dean v. Hipp, 16 Colo. App. 537 ; Schollay v. Moffitt-West Drug Co., 17 Colo. App. 126. District of Columbia. — Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) i, citing 1 Am, AffB Eng. Encyc, of Law (2^ ed,) 1189, Florida. — Madison v. Newsome, 39 Fla. 149 ; Oxford Lake Line v. Pensacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla. 349 ; St. Augustine First Nat. Bank v. Kirkby, 43 Fla. 376. Georgia. — Ludden, etc., Southern Music House v. McDonald, 117 Ga. 60; Whitley v. James, (Ga. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 600. Illinois. — Danziger v. Pittsfield Shoe Co., 204 111. 145. Indiana. — Metzger v. Huntington, 139 Ind. 501; Willison v. McKain,"i2 Ind. App. 78. Iowa. — Thompson u. Des Moines Driving Park, 112 Iowa 628 ; Groeltz v. Armstrong Real Estate Co., 115 Iowa 602. Kentucky. — McDoel v. Ohio Valley Imp., etc., Co., (Ky. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 175. Massachusetts. — • Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413. Michigan. — Maxson v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 218, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1189; Leonardson v. School Dist. No. 3, 125 Mich. 209; Upton v. Dennis, 133 Mich. 238. Minnesota. — Prentiss v. Nelson, 69 Minn. 496, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 189; Hunt v. Pitts Agricultural Works, 69 Minn. 539. Missouri. — Johnson v. Fecht, 94 Mo. App. 605 ; Case v. Hammond Packing Co., (Mo. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 732. Nebraska. — Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rice, 48 Neb. 428 ; O'Shea v. Rice, 49 Neb. 893 ; Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478 ; Nebraska Wesleyan University v. Parker, 52 Neb. 453 ; Bullard v. De Groff, 59 Neb. 783. New Hampshire. — Bohanan v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 N. H. 526. New Jersey. — Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J. Eq. 418. New York. — Long v. Poth, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 85; Camacho v. Hamilton Bank Note, etc., Co., 2 N. Y. App. Div. 369; Beck v. Donohue, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 230 ; Northern Assur. Co. v. Goelet, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 361 ; Caldwell v. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Assoc, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 245 ; Hogue v. Simonson, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 139; Prichard v. Sigafus, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 535. Oklahoma. — Stock Exch. Bank v. William- son, 6 Okla. 348. South Dakota. — Shull v. New Birdsall Co., 15 S. Dak. 8, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1189; Fargo v. Cravens, 9 S. Dak. 646 ; Quale v. Hazel, (S. Dak. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 215. Tennessee. — Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1189. Texas. — Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Tucker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 786; Iron City Nat. Bank v. San Antonio Fifth Nat Bank, (Tex, Civ, App, 1898) 47 S, W. Rep, 533- m 1190-1193 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1 190. Careless Ignorance. — See note I. Deliberate Ignorance. — See note 2. 1191. Ignorant Acceptance of Profits or Goods. — See note I. Ratification of Agent's Warranty. — See note 4. 1 192. d. Ratification of Whole Act. — See note 4. Utah. — Nephi First Nat. Bank v. Foote, 12 Utah 157; Moyle v. Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. Virginia. — Day v. National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 96 Va. 484; Hotchkiss v. Middlekauf, 96 Va. 649. Washington. — Armstrong v. Oakley, 23 Wash. 122; Murphy v. Clarkson, 25 Wash. 585. Wisconsin. — Roberts v. Francis, (Wis. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1076. 1190. 1. Drainage Commission Co. v. Na- tional Contracting Co., 136 Fed. Rep. 780, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 1 90; Brown v. Bamberger, no Ala. 342. . But see Glor v. Kelly, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 617. Knowledge Is Not to Be Presumed from the fact that the principal had a reasonable oppor- tunity to have acquired such knowledge. Sehrt- Patterson Milling Co. v. Hughes, 8 Kan. App. 514- 2. Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588; Lynch v. Smyth, 25 Colo. 103 ; Campbell v. Millar, 84 111. App. 208, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1190; Swisher v. Palmer, 106 111. App. 432, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1190; Bliss v. Sherrill, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 280, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1190. See also An- derson v. Creston Land Co., 96 Va. 257. 1191. 1. Martin v. Hickman, 64 Ark. 217; Schollay v. Moffitt-West Drug Co., 17 Colo. App. 126; Willison v. McKain, 12 Ind. App. 78; Gaskill v. Huffaker, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 770 ; Clark v. Clark, 59 Mo. App. 532 ; Holm v. Bennett, 43 Neb. 808. See also Boehm v. Yanquell, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 184, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 454. Malicious Attachment, — Gimbel v. Gomprecht, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 781. Passing Money Through Bank Account Not Ratification. — The mere passing of the pro- ceeds of an unauthorized transaction through the bank account of the principal without au- thority given by him, and in the absence of evidence that it went to his benefit or was used by or for him, has been held not to be such receiving of the money as will render him liable therefor. Fay v. Slaughter, 194 111. 157, 88 Am. St. Rep. 148, reversing 94 111. App. in. 4. Effect of Pleading Set-off. — A vendor sued for breach of a warranty made by his agent affirms the sale and the warranty by declaring in set-off for the price of the goods after notice of the alleged warranty. Edgar v. Breck, etc., Corp., 172 Mass. 581. 1192. 4. United States. — Egbert v. Sun Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 568. Colorado. — Moffitt-West Drug Co. v. Lyne- man, 10 Colo. App. 249. Idaho. — Burke Land, etc., Co. v. Wells, 7 Idaho 42. Illinois. — Swisher v. Palmer, 106 111. App. 43 2- Indiana. — Wayne International Bldg., etc., 228 Assoc, v. Moats, 149 Ind. 123; Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan, 29 Ind. App. 606, 94 Am. St. Rep. 279. Iowa. — White v. Marquardt, (Iowa 1897) 70 N. W. Rep. 193 ; Harrison v. Schoff,' 101 Iowa 463 ; Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. Greene, etc., Telephone Co., (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 742 ; National Imp., etc., Co. v. Maiken, 103 Iowa 118; Key v. National L. Ins. Co., 107 Iowa 446. Kansas. — Wells v. Hickox, 1 Kan. App. 485 ; McKinstry v. Citizens' Bank, 57 Kan. 279 ; Loomis Milling Co. v. Vawter, 8 Kan. App. 437. Louisiana. — St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769; Boudreaux v. Fei- bleman, 105 La. 401. Massachusetts. — Brown v. Henry, 172 Mass. 559, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 192; Henderson v. Raymond Syn- dicate, 183 Mass. 443. Minnesota. — See Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Hotel Co., 80 Minn. 165, 81 Am. St. Rep. 249, per Brown, J., dissenting, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1192. Missouri. — Porter v. Woods, 138 Mo. 539; Shinn v. r Guyton, etc., Mule Co., (Mo. App. 1904) 83S. W. Rep. 1015; Trenton First Nat. Bank v. Badger Lumber Co., 54 Mo. App. 327. Nebraska. — Hall v. Hooper, 47 Neb. in; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Farmers, etc., Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 379 ; D. M. Osborn Co. v. Jor- dan, 52 Neb. 465 ; U. S. School-Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 87, 56 Neb. 645 ; Martin v. Humphrey, 58 Neb. 414; German Nat. Bank v. Hastings First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 7 : Hin- man v. Austin Mfg. Co., 65 Neb. 187; Hall v. Hopper, 64 Neb. 633 ; Warder, etc., Co. v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. .992. New York. — Nutting v. Kings County El. R. Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 72. Oregon. — La Grande Nat. Bank v. Blum, 27 Oregon 215. Pennsylvania. — Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. McManigal, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 632. Tennessee. — • Bement v. Armstrong, (Term. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1192. Utah. — Genter v. Conglomerate Min.- Co., 23 Utah 165 ; Shafer v. Russell, (Utah 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 559. Virginia. — New York L. Ins. Co. v. Talia- ferro, 95 Va. 522. West Virginia. — Dewing v. Hutton, 48 W. Va. 576, quoting with strong approval 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1192. Wisconsin. — Aultman Co. v. McDonough, no Wis. 263. Ratification Must Cover Whole Act — Illustra- tions. — Reynolds v. Leyden, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 401, quoting from Lane v. Black, 21 W. Va. 617, as stated in 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1192. Where a principal recognizes a contract as being with a certain person, by suing him upon Vol. I. AGENCY. 1193-1197 1 193. A Contract Wholly Unauthorized. — See note 2. 1 194. e. MUTUALITY — Notice to Quit under Lease. — See note 3. 1195. 5. Implied Ratification — a. In General. — See note 1. Batifioation Favored — Question for Jury. — See notes 2, 3. 1 196. Implied from Previous Acts. — ■ See note I. [Aotion Against Agent. — See note 3«.J 1197. b. By Accepting Benefits. — See note i. it, such principal cannot repudiate the rest of the contract and thus escape liability for a breach thereof. Hart v. Maney, 12 Wash. 266. Batifioation by Minors. — The rule applies even to minors. State v. New Orleans, 105 La. 768. 1193. 2. Wood v. Finson, 89 Me. 459; Citizens' State" Bank v. Pence, 59 Neb. 579; Fremont Carriage Mfg. Co. v. Thomsen, 65 Neb. 370. 1 194. 3, McCroskey v. Hamilton, 108 Ga. 640, 75 Am. St. Rep. 79, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1194. 1195. 1. Pope v. J. K. Armsby Co., m Cal. X59; Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588; Cur- nane v. Scheldel, 70 Conn. 13 ; Campbell v. Mil- lar, 84 111. App. 208 ; Joseph Wolf Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 107 111. App. 58; Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Ranney-Alton Mercantile Co., 3 In- dian Ter. 104, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1195; Oberne v. Burke, 50 Neb. 764, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1195; Clement v. Young-McShea Amusement Co., (N. J. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 419; Bliss v. Sherrill, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 280, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 195; Dupignac v. Bernstrom, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 677 ; Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oregon 1 ; Be- ment v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 119s. 2. Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law {2d ed.) 1195. Slight Circumstances and Small Hatters, — Strong v. West, no Ga. 382. Intention to Ratify. — Campbell v. Millar, 84 111. App. 208 ; Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899. Compare Merritt v. Bissell, 155 N. Y. 396, holding that a ratifi- cation of the unauthorized act of an agent or of a stranger who claims to act as such, if it exists, must be found in the intention of the principal, either express or implied. Illustrations — Circumstances Sufficient to Show Batifioation. — See Carter v. St. Mary Abbotts' Vestry, 64 J. P. 548 (reply of principal to pro- test against acts of agent that principal's law- yers would accept service of process) ; Wright v. Farmers' Mut. Live-Stock Ins. Assoc, ^>6 Iowa 360 (acting on contract) ; Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Columbus Junction, 104 Iowa no (agreement of agent to give land for road — ratification by building fence so as to leave land in roadway) ; Owyhee Land, etc., Co. v. Tautphas, (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 343 (pay- ment for work done) ; Southern R. Co. v. Mar- shall, in Ky. 560 (acting on contract) ; Christopher v. National Brewery Co., 72 Mo. App. 121 (ratification of lease by excepting it from general warranty in subsequent deed). See also Appelbaum v. Galewski, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 281 ; Van Campen v. Bruns, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 86 (repayment to agent of money expended) ; Hill v. Coates, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 535 (failure to object to bill except as regards amount thereof) ; Brown v. Wilson, 45 S. Car. 519, 55 Am. St. Rep. 779 (as to indorsement of note) ; Richmond Union Pass. R. Co. v. Rich- mond, etc., R. Co., 96 Va. 670 (payment for work done). 3. jEtna Indemnity Co. v. Ladd, (C. C. A.) 135 Fed. Rep. 636 ; Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 164 111. 323, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1195; Hance v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 60 ; Hesse v. Travelers' Pro- tective Assoc, 72 Mo. App. 598 ; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Pittsburg Third Nat. Bank, 16s Pa. St. 500. The Burden of Proof is upon him who relies on ratification. Moore v. Ensley, 112 Ala. 228; Oxford Lake Line v. Pensacola First Nat. Bank, 40 Fla.' 349. 1196. 1. Exception to Bule. — Ratification of an act that the principal was bound to per- form, or of an act that could inure to his bene- fit alone, has no tendency to establish an agency to act generally concerning the matter for such principal. Gordon v. Vermont L. & T. Co., 6 N. Dak. 454. 3a. A purchaser of land sued his agent through whom the purchase was made to re- cover commissions secretly paid to the agent by the vendor ; and it was held that the pur- chaser by bringing such action against his agent did not ratify the contract of purchase, and therefore he was not precluded from after- wards suing the vendor to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations as to the value of the land. Barnsdall v. O'Day, (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 828. ' 1197. 1. United States.- — American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Spokane Falls First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 961 ; G. V. B. Min. Co. v. Haiiey First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 95 Fed. Rep. 23 ; Domenico v. Alaska Packers' Assoc, 112 Fed. Rep. 554; Hartford, etc, Transp. Co. v. Plymer, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 624; Owyhee Land, etc., Co. v. Tautphas, (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 343. Alabama. — Hoene v. Pollak, 118 Ala. 617, 72 Am. St. Rep. 189. California. — Market St. R. Co. v. Hellman, 109 Cal. 571; Avakian v. Noble, 121 Cal. 216; Phillips v. Sanger Lumber Co., 130 Cal. 431; Mills v. Boyle Min. Co., 132 Cal. 95. Connecticut. — Ansonia v. Cooper, 64 Conn. 536- Illinois. — Fay v. Slaughter, 194 111. 157, 88 Am. St. Rep. 148, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1196, and reversing 94 111. App. in; Carlin v. Brown, 80 111. App. 541 ; Hartford Deposit Co. v. Calkins, 109 111. 229 1198 AGENCY. Vol. I. 111)8. Acceptance Accompanied with Words of Dissent, — See note I. Receiving Goods Purchased by Agent. — See note 2. App. 579; W. H. Stubbings Co. v. World's Columbian Exposition Co., no 111. App. 210; Fraternal Army v. Evans, 114 111. App. 578. Indiana. — Hunt v. Listenberger, 14 Ind. App. 320; Albany Land Co. v. Rickel, 162 Ind. 222. Indian Territory. — Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Ranney-Alton Mercantile Co., 3 Indian Ter. 104, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 197. Iowa. — Hartley State Bank v. McCorkell, 91 Iowa 660 ; Casady v. Manchester F. Ins. Co., 109 Iowa 539; Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank, no Iowa 537;, Fleishman v. Ver Does, in Iowa 322; Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Meredith, 114 Iowa 9. Kansas. — Westerman -0. Evans, 1 Kan. App. 1 ; Lakin Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 57 Kan. 183; German Ins. Co. v. Emporia Mut. Loan, etc., Assoc, 9 Kan. App. 803. Kentucky. — E. T. Kenney Co. v. Anderson, (Ky. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 663 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, (Ky. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 525. Maryland. — Swindell v. Gilbert, (Md. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 102. Michigan. — Clement v. Michigan Clothing Co., no Mich. 458; Payn v. Gidley, 122 Mich. 605. Missouri. — Fahy v. Springfield Grocer Co., 57 Mo. App. 73 ; Mayer v. Old, 57 Mo. App. 639 ; Huttig Sash, etc., Co. v. Gitchell, 69 Mo. App. 115; Bohlmann v. Rossi, 73 Mo. App. 312; J. T. Donovan Real Estate Co. u. Clark, 84 Mo. App. 163; Porter v. Woods, 138 Mo. 539; Stotts City Bank u. Miller Lumber Co., 102 Mo. App. 75 ; Trenton First Nat. Bank v. Badger Lumber Co., 60 Mo. App. 255, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 120. Nebraska. — Johnston v. Milwaukee, etc., In- vest. Co., 49 Neb. 68; Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478; People's Nat. Bank v. Geisthardt, 55 Neb. 232 ; Brong v. Spence, 56 Neb. 638; U. S. School-Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 87, 56 Neb. 645 ; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Nordstrom, 63 Neb. 123 ; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Hiatt, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 627 ; Warder, etc., Co. v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 992. New Jersey. — O'Brien v. Paterson Brewing, etc., Co., (N. J. 1905) 61 Atl. Rep. 437. New York. — ■ Hobkirk v. Green, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 18, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1196; Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Elberson, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 501 ; Quantmeyer v. J. H. Mohlman Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 746 ; Jaeger v. Koenig, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 580 ; Murray v. Sweasy, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 45 ; Budd u. Howard Thomas Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 52; Rollins v. Sidney B. Bowman Cycle Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 287 ; Rosenthal v. Hasberg, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 290 ; Sul- tan v. Bailey, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 332; Curtis v. Natalie Anthracite Coal Co., 89 N. Y. App. Div. 61 ; McVity v. E. D. Albro Co., 90 N. Y. App. Div. 109. North Carolina. — Corbett v. Clute, (N. Car. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 216. North Dakota. — Anderson v. Grand Forks First Nat. Bank, 5 N. Dak. 451. Oklahoma. — Fant v. Campbell, 8 Okla. 586, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 196. Oregon. — Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oregon. 1. Pennsylvania. — Central School Supply House v. School Board, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. no. South Dakota. — Dedrick v. Ormsby Land, etc., Co., 12 S. Dak. 59. Texas. — Rutherford v. Montgomery, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 319; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 151 ; Sanger v. Warren, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 840; Wells v. Simpson Nat. Bank, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 636; Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Baumann, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 49; Greenville First Nat. Bank v. Greenville Oil, etc., Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 645 ; Clark v. Elmendorf, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 538; Evans-Snider- Buel Co. v. Hilje, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 208. Utah. — Smith v. Droubay, 20 Utah 443. Virginia. — Day v. National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 96 Va. 484. Wisconsin. — ■ Moody, etc., Co. v. M. E. Church, 99 Wis. 49 ; Bullen v. Milwaukee Trad- ing Co., 109 Wis. 41. Illustrations of Ratification by Acceptance of Benefits — Receiving Rents. — Clement v. Young- McShea Amusement Co., (N. J. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 419. Duty to Return. — See National Imp., etc., Co. v. Maiken, 103 Iowa 118; Russ v. Hansen, 119 Iowa 375. Exception to Rule. — The acceptance of bene- fits does not amount to a ratification where it is not within the power of the principal to re- ject them. Swayne v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 518. 119§. 1. Haney School-Furniture Co. v. Hightower Baptist Institute, 113 Ga. 289; Campbell v. Millar, 84 111. App. 208. 2. Alabama. — Thompson v. Stringfellow, 119 Ala. 317. California. — Blood v. La Serena Land, etc., Co., 113 Cal. 221. Colorado. — Moffitt-West Drug Co. v. Lyne- man, 10 Colo. App. 249; Witcher v. Gibson, 15 Colo. App. 163. Connecticut. — Duncan v. Kearney, 72 Conn. 585. Georgia. — Haney School-Furniture Co. v. Hightower Baptist Institute, 113 Ga. 289. Illinois. — Campbell v. Millar, 84 111. App. 208. Kentucky. — Howe v. Combs, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1052; Southern Lumber Co. v. Wireman, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 297; Lut- trell v. East Tennessee Telephone Co., (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1124. Minnesota. — Wright v. Vineyard M. E. Church, 72 Minn. 78. New York. — Snyder v. Gardner, (Buffalo Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 626; Kraus v. J. H. Mohlman Co., (Supm. Ct App T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 430. North Carolina. — Williams v. Crosby Lum- 230 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1199-1203 1199. Acoepting Besults to Prevent Further Lobs. — See note I. Acceptance of Proceeds of Loan. — See note 2. 1300. The Acceptance of EentB. — See note I. A Settlement with an Agent with Full Knowledge. — See note 2. 1301. Acceptance of Fruits of Compromise. — See note I. Dealing with Agent's Notes. — See note 2. Filling Order Procured by Agent. — See note 3. 1303. Entry on Land Purchased or Leased. — See note I. Accepting Proceeds of Sale by Agent. — See note 2. ber Co., 118 N. Car. 928; Brittain v. Westhall, *35 N. Car. 492. South Carolina, -r- Welch v. Clifton Mfg. Co., 55 S. Car. 568. Part Payment of the consideration of a con- tract is a ratification. Wright v. Farmers Mut. Live-Stock Ins. Assoc, 96 Iowa 360 ; Manne v. Siegel-Cooper Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 592 ; Anderson z>. National Surety Co., 196 Pa. St. 288. See also Evans-Snider- Buel Co. v. Hilje, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 208. When Return of Goods Impossible. — If at the time when the principal discovers the unauthor- ized purchase of goods by his agent such goods have become so commingled with the goods of the principal that they cannot be identified and returned, the subsequent retention of them will not constitute a ratification of the purchase. Thrall v. Wilson, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 376. 1199. 1. Goodale v. Middaugh, 8 Colo. App. 223. Accepting Besults to Which Entitled Without Ratification. — Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Thomp- son, 106 Ga. 480, to the same effect as White v. Sanders, 32 Me. 188, stated in the original note. Ratification cannot be inferred from the party's doing something which he had the right to do independently of the unauthorized trans- * action. Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402. See also Continental Ins. Co. v. Clark, (Iowa 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 524. Accepting Unauthorized Work Incorporated in Building. — Moyle v. Congregational Soc, 16 Utah 69. See also Forman v. The Ship " Lid- desdale," (1900) A. C. 190. Accepting Benefits Through Necessity. — Where the acceptance of benefits is forced upon the principal, it is not, quoad the agent, d. rati- fication of his acts. Chaffe v. Barataria Can- ning Co., 113 La. 215. 2. Campbell v. Campbell, 133 Cal. 33; Kirk- lin i'.- Atlas Sav., etc., Assoc, 107 Ga. 313; Marks v. Taylor, 23 Utah 152, modified 23 Utah 470; McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64. Loan by Agent of Corporation. — Mohrfeld v. Second German South-Eastern Bldg. Assoc, 194 Pa. St. 488, holding that the payment of in- terest on a loan made to a corporation through its secretary operates as a ratification of the act of the secretary in receiving the money; Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548. 1200. 1. Judik v. Crane, 81 Md. 610; Anderson v. Conner, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 384. Where the Lessor Repudiates an Unauthorized Lease made by his agent, but allows the lessees to remain as tenants from month to month, acceptance of rent does not constitute a ratifi- cation of the lease. Owens v. Swanton, 25 Wash. 112. Subsequent Acceptance of the Tenant by the landlord is not a ratification of the unauthor- ized act of a subagent in accepting from such prospective tenant a deposit to be applied on the rent. McGowan v. Treacy, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 497. 2. Sanders v. Peck, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 61. 1201. 1. Orvis v. Wells, 73 Fed. Rep. no, 38 U. S. App. 471 ; American Quarries Co. v. Lay, (Ind. App. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 608; Hagerman v. Bates, 24. Colo. 71 ; West v. Banigan, 51 N. Y. App. Piv. 328; Cobb v. Edson, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 916; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Hellekson, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 717, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1201 ; Smith' v. Cantrel, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1081. 2. Negotiating with Knowledge of the Facts a note and mortgage executed by an agent con- stitutes a ratification. Iowa State Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 98 Iowa 631. 3. Canda v. Casey, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 322 ; Smith v. Droubay, 20 Utah 443. 1202. 1. Jenet v. Albers, 7 Colo. App. 271 ; William Wicke Co. v. Kaldenberg Mfg. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 79. 2. Arkansas. — Creson v. Ward, 66 Ark. 209. Colorado. — Farrer v. Caster, 17 Colo. App. 41. Iowa. — Blaess v. Nichols, etc., Co., 115 Iowa 373 ; German Sav. Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 122 Iowa 737. Kentucky. — Columbia Land, etc., Co. v. Tinsley, 60 S. W. Rep. 10, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1082; Givens v. Cord, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 665. Minnesota. — Payne v. Hackney, 84 Minn. 195- Missouri. — Akers v. Ray County Sav. Bank, 63 Mo. App. 316; Short v. Stephens, 92 Mo. App. 151; Leavitt v. Fairbanks, 92 Me. 521. New York. — Hess v. Baar, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 11 Misc. (N. Y.) 619; White v. Shep- pard, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 113; Smith v. Bar- nard, 148 N. Y. 420. Rhode Island. — ■ Robinson v. Bailey, 19 R. I. 464. South Dakota. — Hormann v. Sherin, 6 S. Dak. 82. Washington. — Irwin v. Buffalo Pitts Co., (Wash. 1905) 81 Pac Rep. 849. Wisconsin. — Fintel v. Cook, 88 Wis. 485. Dealing with Purchaser as Owner. — An un- authorized sale is ratified by the act of the principal in dealing with the purchaser as the owner of the property. German Nat. Bank v. Hastings First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 7. 231 1309-1£03 AGENCY. Vol. J. 1 303. Implies ^ttfoation . of Ifopresent;MioB» bj TOucJi q«mt»ct Ww Piocurtf. — See 1303. ein v. Matslan4 (Supmy Ct. App. T.) 18 Miap. (N. Y.). 45,0 Icitmg x Am. and Eng. Encyc. qf Law, (2d ed.) 1203] .' Snyder y. Gardner, (Buffalo Super. Ct. Gen T.) 1,3, Mis.c. (N. Y.) 626 ; Glor v. Kelly, 49 N, Y. App, Div. 617. Nebraska, — Farmers', etc., Bank v. Far- mers', etc., Nat, Bank, 49 N,eb, 379 ; Johnston y. Milwaukee, etc., Invest- Co., 49, Neb. 68; Day y. Miller, (Nqb. 1901) 95 N,, W. Rej),. 35^. Penitsylyan,ia.— llim$s v . Iferr, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 124, 39 W. N. C. (Pa.) 568.; Knaner v.. Mc- Kqqn, 19 Pa. Sup^r, Ct. 539; Carlisle, etc,, Co. v. Iron City Sand Co., 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 378,; Sloan v. Johnson, 2q Pa. Super. Ct. 643; Auge • u . Darlington, I185. Pa, St, m. 232 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1905-1909 1303. No Ratification Without Opportunity to Repudiate. — See note I. Reasonable Time a Question for Jury. — See note 2. Failure to Disavow Instantly. — See note 3. 1300. Prompt Disavowal Demanded by Usage or to Prevent Lou. — See note I. Failure to Examine Report ot Agent. — See notes 2, 3. Delay in Hope of Gaining Advantage. — See note 4. 1307. Silence Accompanied with Possession of Property. — See note 2. Silent Acquiescence by Corporation. — See note 6. 1308. See note 1. (2) Where Act Is Done by a Stranger. — See note 2. 1309. Silence Ratification as to Third Parties. — See note I. Tennessee. — Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc.of Law, (2d ed.) 1203. Texas. — Angel v. Miller, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 679; Northwestern L. Assoc, v. Findley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 695 ; Bean v. Bennett, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 662. Washington. — Lynch v. Richter, 1 o Wash. 486. Wisconsin. — Andrews v. Robertson, 1 1 1 Wis. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 870 ; Roundy v. Erspamer, 112 Wis. 181. Wyoming. — Knight v. Beckwith Commercial Co., 6 Wyo. 500. When Silence a Ratification. — To the same effect as De Land v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 1 1 1 111. 326, cited in the original note, see Smyth v. Lynch, 7 Colo. App. 383. Silence Not Ratification. — Where the princi- pal promptly repudiates the unauthorized act as soon as informed of it, and as promptly notifies the agent, mere subsequent silence will not constitute a ratification. Snapp v. Stan- wood, 65 Ark. 222. Silence Is Not Conclusive unless the party affected thereby has' been misled or injured. Lynch v. Smyth, 25 Colo. 103, reversing on other grounds 7 Colo. App. 383 ; Smith v. Fletcher, 75 Minn. 189. Acquiescence for Five Years after knowledge of the facts has been held to amount to a rati- fication. Thompson v. Stringfellow, 119 Ala. 317. Elements of Estoppel Necessary. — Failure to repudiate the act of an unauthorized person, to operate as a ratification, should embrace the essential elements of estoppel. Smith v. Fletcher, 75 Minn. 189 ; Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402. See also Atlanta Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Bollinger, 63 Ark. 212. Question for Jury. — Whether silence alone for an unreasonable time amounts to a ratification is a question for the jury. Iron City Nat. Bank v. San Antonio Fifth Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 533; San Antonio Fifth Nat. Bank v. Iron City Nat. Bank, 92 Tex. 436. 1203. 1. Farmers', etc., Bank v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 379 ; Hopkins v . Clark, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 207, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1205. 2. Whitley v. James, (Ga. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 600 ; Jones v. Consolidated Portrait, etc., Co., 1 00 111. App. 89 ; Ketchem v. Marsland, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 450, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1205. 3. When Failure to Disavow Need Not B» Instantaneous. — Kendall v. Earl, (Cal. 1896) 44 Pac. Rep. 791. 1206. 1. Comer v. Way, 107 Ala. 300, 54 Am. St. Rep. 93 ; Kendall v. Earl, (Cal. 1896) 44 Pac. Rep. 791 ; Robbins v. Bianding, 87 Minn. 246 ; Dewing v. Hutton, 48 W. Va. 576, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206 ; Roberts v. Tavenner, 48 W. Va. 632, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206. Illustration. — Where an agent sold certain notes of his principal for the notes of other persons, it was held that an offer to rescind more than a month after the maturity of one of the notes was too late. Hotchkiss v. Roehm, 181 Pa. St. 65. 2 Bliss v. Sherrill, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 280, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206; Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206; Dewing v~ Hutton, 48 W. Va. 576, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206. 3. Dewing v. Hutton, 48 W. Va. 576, quoting 1 'Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1206. But see Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U. S. 397- 4. Speculative Delay. — Robbins v. Bianding, 87 Minn. 246. 1207. 2. State Bank v. Kelly, 109 Iowa 544- 6. Salem Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Consol. Iron Mines, (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. Rep. 239; Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Ranney-Alton Mercan- tile Co., 3 Indian Ter. 104, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1207; Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85 ; German Nat. Bank v. Hastings First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 7 ; Alex- ander v. Culbertson Irrigation, etc., Co., 61 Neb. 333; Smith v. New England Bank, 72 N. H. 4; Nashville First Nat Bank v. Shook, 100 Tenn. 436. Act of Corporation Officer Ratified by Silent Acquiescence. — Alaska, etc., Commercial Co. v. Solner, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 855; Egbert v. Sun Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 568. 120§. 1. Silence for Two Years has been held' not to be sufficiently long continued to be evi- dence of acquiescence. Oliver v. Rahway Ice: Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 596. 2, Deane v. Gray Bros. Artificial Stone Pav- ing Co., 109 Cal. 433 ; Robbins v. Bianding, 87- Minn. 246. 1209. 1. Bement v. Armstrong, (Tenn. Ch. 1S96) 39 S. W. Rep. 899, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1209. 233 1309-1313 AGENCY. Vol. I. 1309. Silence Some Evidence of Ratification. — See note 2. d. By Suit. — See note 4, 1310. See note 1. Suit to Enforce Contract. — See notes 2, 3. Suit to Recover Price of Goods. — See note 4. 1311. See note 1. 6. Ratification of Instruments under Seal. — See note 2. 1313. Principal Estopped to Deny Deed. — See note I. Seal Surplusage. — See note 3. 1313. 7. Effect of Ratification — a. In General. — See note 2. 1209. 2. Ketchem v. Marsland, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 450, quoting 1 Am. and Eng Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1209. See also Merritt v. Bissell, 155 N. Y. 396, holding that a failure to disavow the acts of a mere volunteer will not amount to a ratification un- less under such circumstances as indicate an in- tention to ratify. i. Curnane v. Scheidel, 70 Conn. 13 ; Single- ton v. Monticello Bank, 113 Ga. 527; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. James, 117 Ga. 832; American Express Co. v. Lankford, 2 Indian Ter. 1 8 ; Warder, etc., Co. v. Cuthbert, 99 Iowa 681; Bissell v. Dowling, 117 Mich. 646; Wat- son v. Southern Ins. Co., (Miss. 1902) 31 So. Rep. 904; Alexander v. Wade, 106 Mo. App. 141 ; German-American Bank v. Schwinger, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 393, (N. Y. 1904; 70 N. E. Rep. 1099; Arnold v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 106 Tenn. 529; Campbell v. Jenkins, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 673. Suit for Money Received Without Authority. — See Schanz v. Martin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 492. A Suit Without Complete Knowledge of the Facts does not constitute a ratification. Bank of Commerce v. Miller, 105 111. App. 224. 1210. 1. Fraternal Army v. Evans, 215 111. 625, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1209, 1210. 2. Williamson v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 644; Ken- tucky Lumber Co. v. Middleton, (Ky. 1897) 41 S.'W. Rep. 48. 8. La Grande Nat. Bank v. Blum, 27 Oregon 215. 4. Terry v. Buek, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 419. Compare Holland Coffee Co. v. Johnson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 187, holding that an action against an agent to recover the price of goods "sold did not constitute a ratifi- cation of the act of the agent in accepting a suit of clothes in payment. 1211. 1. Piano Mfg. Co. v. Millage, 14 S. Dak. 331. 2. Blood u. La Serena Land, etc., Co., 113 Cal. 221 ; Lynch v. Smyth, 25 Colo. 103. See also supra, this title, 952. 7. et seq. Where the Authority Is Required to Be in Writing the ratification must be made with equal cere- mony. Long v. Poth, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 85. 1212. 1. Blood v. La Serena Land, etc., Co., 113 Cal. 221. 3. Smyth v. Lynch, 7 Colo. App. 383 ; Lynch v. Smyth, 25 Colo. 103; Rutherford v. Mont- gomery, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 319. 1213. 2. United States. — Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 870. California. — Market St. R. Co. v. Hellman, 109 Cal. 571 ; Ballard v. Nye, 138 Cal. 588. Colorado. — Lynch v. Smyth, 25 Colo. 103. Connecticut. — Ansonia v. Cooper, 64 Conn. 536. Georgia. — Kirklin v. Atlas Sav., etc., Assoc, 107 Ga. 313. Iowa. — Bradford v. Smith, 123 Iowa 41. Kansas. — Aultman Threshing, etc., Co. zf. Knoll, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1074. Kentucky. — Hewling v. Wilshire, 61 S. W. Rep. 264, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1702. Massachusetts. — Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413. Minnesota. — Hunter v. Cobe, 84 Minn. 187. Missouri. — Roe v. Versailles Bank, 167 Mo. 406 ; Alexander v. Wade, 106 Mo. App. 141. New Hampshire. — Smith v. New England Bank, 72 N. H. 4. New Jersey. — ■ McAlpin v. Universal Tobacco Co., (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 802. Nebraska. — Hohn v. Bennett, 43 Neb. 808 ; Johnston v. Milwaukee, etc., Invest. Co., 49 Neb. 68. ,New York. — Merritt v. Bissell, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 194; Hess v. Baar, (C. PI. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 286; Schanz v. Martin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 492; Dupignac v. Bernstrom, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 677. Pennsylvania. — Himes v. Herr, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 124, 39 W. N. C. (Pa.) 568; Straub Brew- ing Co. v. Bonistalli, 5 Pa. Super, Ct. 415; Daughters of American Revolution v. Schenley, 204 Pa. St. 572. Utah. — Genter v. Conglomerate Min. Co., 23 Utah 165 ; Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548. Wisconsin. — Piatt v. Schmitt, 117 Wis. 489. Canada. — Scott v . New Brunswick Bank, 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 277. A principal cannot appropriate to himself all the advantages of his agent's unauthorized con- duct and repudiate its obligations, nor can he escape liability by claiming ignorance of some of the facts. Aultman Threshing, etc., Co. v. Knoll, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1074. Effect as Notice. — One who, by ratification, makes the act of another his own, becomes chargeable with notice of all such matters as appeared to be within the knowledge of the agent at the time of the transaction. Lampkin v. Cartersville First Nat. Bank, 96 Ga. 487. Ratification of Acceptance of Option. — Where an agent accepts an option of purchase without authority, ratification of such act by the prin- cipal after the time limit has expired is in- effective. Dibbins v. Dibbins, (1896) 2 Ch. 348. 234 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1214 1218 1214. See note 7. Ratification Irrevocable. — See note 2. c. Liability of Principal and Agent to Third Parties. — Distinction Between Ratification of Contracts and Torts. — See note Q. d. As to Intervening Rights. — See note 1. XI. Termination — 1. By Act of Parties — a. In Accordance WITH AGREEMENT — Agreement for Term, if Satisfactory. — See note I . b. Revocation by Principal — (i) In General.— See note 2. Authority to Sell Lands — To Appropriate Funds. — See note 3. Stipulation Against Revocation. — See notes I, 2. Revocation After Sale Effected by Agent. — See note 5. (2) When Agency Is Coupled with tin Interest. — See note 6. What Constitutes Authority Coupled with Interest. — See notes I, 3, 4. Agency for Protection of Party Authorized. — See note 5. 1315. 1216. 1217. 1218. 1214. 2. Sanders v. Peck, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 61 ; Hunter v. Cobe, 84 Minn. 187, Richmond Union Pass. R. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 96 Va. 670. 7. Ansonia v. Cooper, 64 Conn. 536; Ault- man Threshing, etc., Co. v. Knoll, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 1074. 9. Lingenfelder v. Leschen, 134 Mo. 55. 1215. 1. Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 682 ; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Howard, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 262, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1215 ; Graham v. Williams, 114 Ga. 716; Stickley v. Widle, 122 Iowa 400, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1215; Clendenning v. Hawk, 10 N. Dak. 90 ; Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548 ; Piatt v. Schmitt, 117 Wis. 489. 1216. 1. Chaffe v. Barataria Canning Co., 113 La. 215. The Principal Alone Has the Right to Determine when he is justified in terminating the agency. Karsner v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 33s, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 394. No Implied Contract to Remain in Business. — A contract of agency for ten years does not raise any implied guaranty that the principal will remain in business for that length of time. Northey v. Trevillion, 7 Com. Cas. (Eng.) 201. 2. Barrett v. Gilmour, 6 Com. Cas. (Eng.) 72 ; Galibert v. Atteaux, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 427 ; Sheahan v. National Steamship Co.,' (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 167 ; Linder v. Adams, 95 Ga. 668; Smith v. Dare, 89 Md. 47; Royal Remedy, etc., Co. v. Gregory Grocer Co., 90 Mo. App. 53 ; Elwell v. Coon, (N. J. 1900) 46 Ati. Rep. 580 ; Hitchcock v. Kelley, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 180, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 808 ; Rice v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 1 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) m; Flaherty v. O'Connor, 24 R. I. 587. Contract for Permanent Employment. — Though by the contract the agency is made permanent, the law still holds that the term is indefinite, and the agency may be terminated at the will of either party. Davis v. Fidelity F. Ins. Co., 208 111. 375. 8. Kolb v. J. E. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss.- 567, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1216. 1217. 1. Buffalo Land, etc., Co. v. Strong, 91 Minn. 84; Montague v. McCarroll, 15 Utah 3i r 8. 2, Woods v. Hart, so Neb. 497. 5. Davis v. Huber Mfg. Co., 119 Iowa 56; Merton v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 99 Mo. App. 630 ; Odum v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., (Term. Ch. 1895) 36 S. W. Rep. 191 ; Leupold v. Weeks, 96 Md. 280. Expenses Incurred by Agent Before Revocation. — To the same effect as U. S. v. Jarvis, Dav. (U. S.) 274, stated in the original note, see Terwilliger v. Ontario, etc., R. Co., 149 N. Y. 86. See also Royal Remedy, etc., Co. v. Greg- ory Grocer Co., 190 Mo. App. 53. 6. Ray v. Hemphill, 97 Ga. 563, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217 et seq.; Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa 703; Buffalo Land, etc., Co. v. Strong, 91 Minn. 84; Miller v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. J. L. 175, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217; Ter- williger v. Ontario, etc., R. Co., 149 N. Y. 86; Montague v. McCarroll, 15 Utah 318. An Oral Authority may be irrevocable as well as an authority in writing. Terwilliger v. On- tario, etc., R. Co., 149 N. Y. 86. 121§. 1. Kolb v. J. E. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1218; Brown v. Skotland, 12 N. Dak. 445, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217. 3. Nevitt v. Woodburn, 82 111. App. 649 ; Marbury v. Barnet, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 386, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1216. Must Be Derived from Same Source. — To con- stitute an agency coupled with an interest, both agency and interest must be derived from the same source. Black v . Harsha, 7 Kan. App. 794. 4. Authority to Sell on Commission. — Andrews v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 70 S. W. Rep. 43, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 844, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217 [1218], and sup- porting the whole text paragraph ; Kolb v. J. E. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1218; Elwell v. Coon, (N. J. 1900) 46 Atl. Rep. 580 ; Wainwright v. Massenburg, 129 N. Car. 46, citing t Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217, 1218. Agency to Sell Land on Commission. — Hall v. Gambrill, 88 Fed. Rep. 709. See also Yingling v. West End Imp. Co., 5 Pa. Dist. 607. Agency to Solicit Insurance on Commission. — Andrews v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 70 S. W, Rep. 43, 24 Ky. L. Reo. 844 ; Ballard v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 119 N. Car. 187. 5. Ray v. Hemphill, 97 Ga. 563 ; Durbrow v. 235 1910-1999 AGENCY. Vol. I. note 2. 1219. See note i. (3) How Effected. — See note 3. 1930. subagents. — See note 1. (4) When Effective — Notice of Revocation — A§ to the Agent. Aa to Third Persona. — See note 3. 1921. See note 1. Statutes Requiring Record of Revocation. — See note 2. Constructive Notice. — See note 4. 1222. Effect of Revocation and Notice. — See note 3. c Renunciation by Agent. — See note 4. Implied Renunciation — Rights of Principal. — See note 6. — See Eppens, 65 N. J. L. 16; Miller v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. J. L. 175, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1217-1219. 1219. 1. Miller v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. J. L. 175, quoting 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1219 ; Stevens v. Sessa, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 547. 8. Kolb v. J. E. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, citing 1 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1219. Disposition of Subject-matter. — A power of attorney to convey land is revoked by a subse- quent deed to the agent as trustee and guar- dian of the principal's son. Chenault v. Quisen- berry, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 410, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 234. The Sale of the Property. — Kelly v. Brennan, 55 N. J. Eq. 423 ; Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615. Appointment of Agent to Inconsistent Duties. — Authority to collect money for an estate is sus- pended, if, indeed, the agency is not entirely renounced, by the appointment of the agent as administrator of the estate. Matter of Wat- kins, 121 Cal. 327. Demand for Return of Power. — The demand by the principal for the return of a written power under which an attorney in fact was act- ing, and its surrender and withdrawal without any explanatory words or further instructions, amount to a revocation of the power. Kelly v. Brennan, 55 N. J. Eq. 423. Appointment of Another Agent. — Authority to one to dismiss a certain suit is revoked by au- thority to another to continue it. Aiken v. Tay- lor, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 200. 1220. 1. Union Casualty, etc., Co. v. Gray, 114 Fed. Rep. 422, 52 C. C. A. 224. 2. Union Special Sewing Mach. Co. v. Lock- Tvood, no 111. App. 387; Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615. The Agent Must Be Notified of the revocation -where the contract is in the nature of a letting and hiring. Spinks v. Georgia Quincy Granite Co., (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 824. 3. Alger v. Keith, 105 Fed. Rep. 105, 44 C. C. A.) 371 ; Continental F. Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 131 Ala. 614, citing ^ Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1220; Swinnerton v. Argonaut Land, etc., Co., 112 Cal. 375; Stockton Ice Co. v. Argonaut Land, etc., Co., (Cal. 1899) 56 Pac. Rep. 885; Meeker v. Mannia, 162 111. 203; Maxcy Mfg. Co. v. Burnham, 89 Me. 538, 56 Am. St. Rep. 436 ; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Jackson Junior Zinc Co., 98 Mo. App. 324 ; Vogel v. Weissmann, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 256; Stevens v. Schroeder, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 590 ; Lynch v. Rabe, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 215; Cosmo- politan Range Co. v. Midland R. Terminal Co., 44 N. Y. App. Div. 467; Sibley v. Gilmer, 124 N. Car. 635, citing i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of LAw(2ded.) 1230(1220); Edinburgh-American Land Mortg. Co. v. Noonan, n S. Dak. 141. In the Case of a Special Agent no notice need be given to third persons. Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615. Exception to Rule. — The doctrine that one who has dealt with an agent in a matter within his authority has a right to assume in subse- quent dealings with him, unless otherwise in- formed, that the agency continues, cannot be held to apply to a case where the agent of an undisclosed principal afterwards embarks in a new enterprise in his own name, the fact that he ever was an agent being unknown to the party with whom he deals. IllstOn v. Evans, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 447. 1221. 1. Gratz v. Land, etc., Imp. Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 381, 53 U. S. App. 499; Cheshire Provident Inst. v. Feusner, 63 Neb. 682. 2. When Recording of the Revocation Is Not Required, the recording does not amount to constructive notice. Best v. Gunther, (Wis. 1905) 104 N. W. 82. 4. Donnan v. Adams, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615. 1222. 3. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Ashmore, 43 Fla. 272. 4. Hitchcock v. Kelley, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 180, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 808. Agent Repudiating Agency and Acting for Self. — "Where an agent abandons the object of his agency, and acts for himself by committing a fraud for his own exclusive benefit, he ceases to act within the scope of his employment, and to that extent ceases to act as agent." Stern- back v. Friedman, (Supm. Ct. Spec' T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 173. Where an agent puts himself into a position antagonistic to his principal, such a breach of duty, unless condoned by the principal with a full knowledge of the facts, puts an end ipso facto to the agency. Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7. 6. When Renunciation Not Implied. — Where an agent remonstrated with his principal for acting with other agents, and said that he would not continue to act as agent, but did continue to do so, the agency was held not to be terminated. Stringfellow v. Elsea, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 418. 236 Vol. I. AGENCY. 1333-1330 1333. 1334. 1335. 1336. note 5. 1337. 1338. 1339. note 4. 1330. 2. By Operation of Law — a. Death of Principal. — See note 1. Authority Coupled with an Interest. — See note 5. Acts Done Bona Tide Without Notice of Principal's Death. — See note 3. Payment to or Purchase by Agent After Principal's Death. — See note 2. b. Death of Agent. — See note 2. c. Insanity of Either Party — insanity of Principal. — See d. Bankruptcy of Either Party — Principal. — See note 3. Agent. — See note 5. /. Effect of War. — See note 5. g. Accomplishment of Purpose — Lapse of Time. — See Authority to Find Purchasers. — See note I. 1223. 1. United States. — Pacific Bank •. Moore, 130 N. 256 Vol. II. ALIMONY. 113-116 113. b. Expenses of Suit. — See note i. Prevailing Rule — Common-law Bight. — See note 3. 111. Nature of Expenses Allowed. — See notes 2, 4. c. Counsel Fees. — See note 5. 115. Bights of Wife's Attorney Against Husband, — See notes I, 2, 3. Number of Counsel. — See note 4. 116. Agreement by Attorney for Contingent Fee. — See note 2. Dismissal of Divorce Suit by Husband. — See note 4. Car. 333, an allowance of $4,000 alimony pendente lite was held not to be excessive where the defendant was worth from $80,000 to $100,000. Where the husband has no property and the evidence shows him unable to procure employ- ment an allowance of $350 as alimony and $25 a month, with $300 as counsel fees, was held to be excessive. Culpepper v. Culpepper, 98 Ga. 304- An allowance of $40 as temporary alimony has been held to be insufficient where the "evi- dence shows the wife was put to the expense of $60 in taking depositions. Cairnes v. Cairnes, 29 Colo. 260, 93 Am. St. Rep. 55. Where the husband conceded that he earned $20 per week, and there was not sufficient evi- dence that he earned $50 per week as alleged by the wife, an allowance of $12 per week was held proper. Weigand v. Weigand, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 293. For other examples, see Meyer v. Meyer, (Cal. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep- 485 ; Baker v. Baker, 136 Cal. 302; Ayers v. Ayers, 99 Ga. 325 ; Grove v. Grove, 79 Mo. App. 142. • 113. 1. Storke v. Storke, 116 Cal. 47; Allen v. Superior Ct., 133 Cal. 504; McCue.u. , McCue, 149 Ind. 466; Bordeaux v. Bordeaux, 29 Mont. 478; Reed v. Reed, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 73 ; Shepherd v. Shepherd, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 614; Smith v. Smith, 51 S. Car. 384, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 92. 3. States Where Granted Independently of Statute. — Kunze v. Kunze, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 5 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 8. 114. 2. Earle v. Earle, 75 111. App. 351. Only Necessary Expenses should be provided for, and the defendant should not be made to pay for a stenographer's minutes of a mistrial, they not being necessary. Herrmann v. Herr- mann, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 76. Fast Expenses. — Lynch v. Lynch, 99 111. App. 454 ; Bordeaux v. Bordeaux, 29 Mont. 478. Prospective Expenses. — Stevenson v. Steven- son, 19 Ont. Pr. 48. Compare Gallagher v. Gallagher, 17 Ont. Pr. 573. 4. Expense of Investigating and Obtaining Information. ■ — Fernald v. Fernald, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 629. 5. Allowance of Counsel Fees. — Meyer v. Meyer, (Cal. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep. 485; Hinton v. Hinton, 117 Ga. 547; Hilker v. Hilker, 153 Ind. 425 ; Donnelly v. Donnelly, 78 S. W. Rep. 182, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1543; McCloskey v. Mc- Closkey, 68 Mo. App. 199 ; Van Vleck v. Van Vleck, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 272 ; Carden v. Carden, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1022; McClelland v. McClelland, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 350. Compare Gallagher V, Gallagher, 17 Ont. Pr. 573. 1 Supp, E, of J« -17 ?57 Where the wife is not in fault and has no estate, the husband is liable for her attorney's fees, though the case is settled and the parties reconciled before a hearing takes place. Evans v. Stewart, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 697. Allowance on Appeal. — An allowance for at- torney's fee on appeal will not be made in the absence of proof as to the ability of the hus- band to pay. Engleman v. Engleman, 97 Va. 487. 115. 1. Claim of Attorney for Fees. — Ander- son v. Steger, 173 111. 112; Garrison v. Garri- son, 150 Ind. 417; Yeiser v. Lowe, so Neb. 310; Millady v. Stein, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 652 ; Naumer v. Gray, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 529; Kellogg v. Stoddard, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 137. -Lien. — An attorney for the wife has no lien for his fees. Carden v. Carden, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1022. 2. Lynch v. Lynch, 99 111. App. 454; Werres 11. Werres, 102 111. App. 360; Miles v. Miles, 102 111. App. 130. 3. Hays v. Ledman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 575- 4. Proof of the Amount of Labor or the Value of Services. — Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 103 111. App. 349; Blair v. Blair, 74 Iowa 311. In Determining the Reasonableness of the Amount. — Rose v. Rose, 109 Cal. 544. Illustrations as to Number of Counsel and Amount of Fees. — A fee of $8,000 was allowed where the husband was shown to be worth $1,- 000,000. Harding v. Harding, 180 111. 592. Five hundred dollars allowed as counsel fee for four attorneys was held to be excessive in the absence of proof of the necessity of four coun- sel. Rogers v. Rogers, 103 Ga. 763. A fee of $250 was reduced to $73 in the case of Plant v. Plant, 63 Ark. 128. In making an allowance for attorney's fee the court should determine from the evidence what would be a reasonable amount. Schneider v. Kohn, 70 S. W. Rep. 287, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 924. In Hughbanks v. Hughbanks, 76 S. W. Rep. 355, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 840, it was held that a fee of $300, allowed counsel in a suit for separa- tion from bed and board, was a reasonable al- lowance. 116. 2, Van Vleck v. Van Vleck, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 272. Part of Alimony. — An agreement between the wife and her counsel, whereby the attorney is to receive a share of the alimony as compen- sation for his services, is void as against pub- lic policy and because such a claim is not as- signable. Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736, 97 Am. St. Rep. 692. 4. O'Neil v. O'Neil, 100 Iowa 743. Upon Beconciliation. — The husband is liable for the. fee of the wife's attorney though th? 116-118 ALIMONY. Vol. II. 116. After Adverse Termination of Wife's Suit. — See note 5. , 8. Termination. — See note 7. 117. See note 2. Upon the Death of Either Party. — See note 3. IV. Permanent Alimony — 1. Nature. — See note 5. Assignability. — See note 6. 2. In Dissolution and Nullity Suits — At common law. — See note 8. 118. See note 1. The Matter of Alimony Is Regulated by Statute. — See note 2. 3. Where Wife Is in Fault. — See note 4. suit for divorce was instituted by him and the parties became reconciled and the suit was dis- missed at the wife's directions, before a hear- ing. Powell v. Lilly, 68 S. W. Rep. 123, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 193. Setting Aside Dismissal.— The court has power to set aside a dismissal of a suit by the hus- band at the same term and allow alimony. Woodward v. Woodward, 84 Mo. App. 328. 116. 6. Corder v. Speake, (Oregon 1898) 51 Pac. Rep. 647. Contra, Bordeaux v. Bor- deaux, Z9 Mont. 478. 7. Termination of Proceedings.— Wald v. Wald, 124 Iowa 183 ; Ulbricht v. Ulbricht, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 479; State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, (Montana 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 13. 117. 2. After Dismissal of Bill. — Where a wife dismisses her bill before issue is joined, the attorneys for the wife are not entitled to any allowance. Carden v. Carden, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1022. 3. Kellogg v. Stoddard, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 137. See also Shepard v. Shepard, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 308. Past-due Alimony may be enforced against the estate of the decedent. See Shepard v. Shep- ard, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 308. 8. " Alimony, as distinguished from suit money, is founded on the duty of the husband to maintain the wife, and it is the duty of the judiciary to enforce this duty in a proper case." Motley v. Motley, 93 Mo, App. 473. Not in lieu of Dower. — Under Ga. Civ. Code, § 2464 et seq., the allowance of permanent ali- mony bars the dower right of the wife. Harris v. Davis, us Ga. 950. In Ohio the decree for alimony may recite that it is in lieu of dower, and if it does is 3 bar to the claim of the wife for any such right. Julier v. Julier, 62 Ohio St. 90, 78 Am. St. Rep. 697. 8. Not Assignable. — Watkins v. Watkins, (1896) P. 222; Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736, 97 Am. St. Rep. 692. Compare Maclurcan v. Maclurcan, 77 L. T. N. S. 474. Discharge in Insolvency. — Turner v. Turner, 108 Fed. Rep. 785, citing 2 Am. and Ekg. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 117; Audubon v. Shu- feldt, 181 U. S. S75 ; Welty v. Welty, 96 111. App. 141; Young v. Young, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 3s Misc. (N. Y.) 335 ; Maisner v. Maisner, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 286; Arlington v. Arrington, 131 N. Car. 143, 92 Am. St. Rep. 769; Lemert v. Lemert, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 253. See also Kerr v. Kerr, (1897) 2 Q. B. 439. And see generally the title Insolvency and Bankruptcy. Inhibition of Imprisonment for Debt Not Appli- cable. — Kerr v. Kerr, (1897) 2 Q. B, 439; Webb v. Webb, 140 Ala. 262; In re Popejoy, 26 Colo. 32, 77 Am. St. Rep. 222; Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 99 Am. St. Rep. 119; Barclay v. Barclay, 184 111. 375 ; State v. King, 49 La. Ann. 1503; Ervay v. Ervay, 120 Mich. 525; Hurd v. Hurd, 63 Minn. 443 ; State v. Jamison, 69 Minn. 427 ; Ronan v. Ronan, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 467 ; Hutchison v. Canon, 6 Okla. 725 ; Matter of Cave, 26 Wash. 213, 90 Am. St. Rep. 736; State v. Ditmar, 19 Wash. 324; State v. Smith, 17 Wash. 430. Contra, Leeder v. State, 55 Neb. 133. But where the defendant is unable to pay the alimony awarded he cannot be held in con- tempt. Ex p. Silvia, 123 Cal. 293, 69 Am. St. Rep. 58. Alimony Is Not Itself an "Estate." — Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736, 97 Am. St. Rep. 692. 8. Taylor v. Taylor, 7 Colo. App. 549 ; Park v. Park, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 372; Herron v. Herron, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 323. 118. 1. Wabberson v. Wabberson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 125. In Prine v. Prine, 36 Fla. 676, it was held that the chancery court has inherent power to grant alimony to the wife in a suit by the hus- band to declare the marriage void ah initio. 2. Statutes. — In Connecticut, alimony may be awarded to the wife in suits to annul, and this right is not limited to where the woman is blameless or not equally in fault with the hus- band. Stapleberg v. Stapleberg, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 233. In Kentucky it has been held that the wife is entitled to alimony in all cases of separation where she was not in fault, though the husband procured the divorce. Irwin v. Irwin, 105 Ky. 632. In Texas there can be no allowance for per- manent alimony. The wife is entitled to ali- mony pendente lite and the final decree may order a division of community property, but cannot provide, by way of alimony, support or maintenance of the divorced wife. Boyd v. Boyd, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 200. In New York the Supreme Court has power, under Code Civ. Pro., §§ 1742-1755, to award alimony and counsel fee in suits to annul. Hig- gins v. Sharp, 164 N. Y. 4. 4. Misconduct of Wife. — Beeler .v. Beeler, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 136. After Divorce a Mensa. — In divorce a mensa et thoro the wife is still under the obligation of chastity, and alimony is conditioned upon her good behavior in this respect. G. v. G., (N. J. 1903) 56 Atl. Rep. 736. Though the Wife Obtained the Divorce, still; 258 Vol. II. ALIMONY. 119-135 119. 130. note 4. 131. 133. 133. Husband. 134. 135. stances. — Statutory Provisions. — See notes I, 2, 3- Kule Relaxed under Special Circumstances. — See note 4. And Where the Entire Blame Does Not Best on the Wife. — See note 3. 4. Amount — a. IN GENERAL — Matter of Jndicial Discretion. See One-third of Husband's Income Usual Rule. — See note I. Where Wife Has Contributed to Husband's Property. — See note 3. Interest. — See note 5. b. Circumstances Determining — (i) Estate and Faculties of — See note 2. The Fact that the Husband Has No Estate. — See note 3. What Property to Be Taken into Account. — See note I. (2) Means and Condition of Wife — When wife in Comfortable Circum- See note 2. where it was clearly shown that she was in fault and the husband was an old man having no trade or profession, alimony was not allowed. Garrett v. Garrett, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 112. Where the Wife Refuses to Live with Her Hus- band, without cause she is not entitled to re- cover alimony of him in a divorce proceeding. Isaacs v. Isaacs, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 268. 119. 1. Motley v. Motley, 93 Mo. App. 473. See also De Hoog v. De Hoog, 65 Mo. App. 246. 2. Pauly v. Pauly, (Okla. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 148. . In Kentucky, by statute, the husband is liable for alimony and attorney's fee in addition, un- less it appears that the wife is in fault and that she has ample estate to pay the costs. It has been held that both of these conditions must exist before the wife can be taxed with the costs. Turner v. Turner, 62 S. W. Rep. 1022, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 370. 3. It Is Entirely Within the Discretion of the Court to order an allowance under such a stat- ute, and the wife need not show special cir- cumstances to entitle her to the order — such as the misconduct of her husband. Ashcroft v. Ashcroft, (1902) P. 270. 4. Alderson v. Alderson, 113 Ky. 830; Pore v. Pore, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 681. " It is not the rule in this state that the party in the wrong can have no alimony under any circumstances." McDonald v. McDonald, 117 Iowa 307. 120. 3. Raper v. Raper, 58 Kan. 590. 4. Question of Amount largely Matter of Dis- cretion. — Cobb v. Cobb, (1900) P. 294; Ben- ham v. Benham, 208 111. 98 ; Harding v. Hard- ing, 79 111. App. 590 ; Stutsman -v. Stutsman, 30 Ind. App. 645 ; Young v. Young, 59 Kan. 775, 52 Pac. Rep. 889; Franck v. Franck, 107 Ky. 362 ; Youngs v. Youngs, 78 Mo. App. 223 ; Kim- bro *. Kimbro, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 271. 121. 1. General Rule — One-third of Hus- band's Income. — Cobb v. Cobb, (1900) P. 294; Irwin v. Irwin, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 199 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 67 Minn. 444; Griffin v. Griffin, 18 Utah 98 ; Edleman v. Edleman, (Wis. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 56. One-third of Joint Incomes, when wife has means of her own, apart from her husband. Kettlewell v. Kettlewell, (1898) P. 138; Cobb V. Cobb, (tgoo) P. 294. Wfcen the Husband'? Income Is Very large, less than one-third may be allowed, if the pro- vision is ample considering the circumstances. Kettlewell v. Kettlewell, (1898) P. 138. In Arkansas the wife is entitled by statute to one-third of the husband's personalty abso- lutely, and one-third for life of all the real estate of which he is seized. Beene v. Beene, 64 Ark. 518. 122. 3. Where Wife Has Brought Property to the Husband. — Champion v. Myers, 207 111. 308; Casey v. Casey, 116 Iowa 655. Where the joint labor, care, and investments of both parties produced the property of the husband, an allowance to the wife of about one- half of such property was held to be reasonable in a case where such wife was weak, sickly, and unable to earn her own living. Metcalf v. Metcalf, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 79. 5. Interest. — Huellmantel v. Huellmantel, 124 Cal. 583; Harding v. Harding, 79 111. App. 621. 123. 2. Considerations Determining Amount. — - Walton v. Walton, 64 J. P. 264 ; Fredericks v. Sault, 19 Ind. App. 604; Boreing v. Boreing, 114 Ky. 522; Parsons v. Parsons, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1 187; Hall v. Hall, 77 S. W. Rep. 668, 25 Ky. L., Rep. 1304; Heist v. Heist, 48 Neb. 794; Walton v. Walton, 57 Neb. 102; Zim- merman v. Zimmerman, 59 Neb. 80 ; Matcalf v. Metcalf, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 79 ; Read v. Read, (Utah 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 675. Income to Which Husband Has No Legal Claim. — It is proper to take into consideration an in- come the payment of which the husband has no legal power to enforce — such as a voluntary allowance made him by his brother. Bonsor v. Bonsor, (1897) P. 77. 3. Husband Without Property — Ability to Earn Money. — Compare Dupuis v. St. Mars, 5 Quebec Pr. 404; Gaston v. Gaston, 114 Cal. 542, 55 Am. St. Rep. 86: Snedager v. Kincaid, 60 S. W. Rep. 522, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1347; Downing v. Downing, (N. J. 1903) 54 Atl. Rep. 542. 124. 1. Pension Money. — Bailey v. Bailey, 76 Vt. 264. 125. 2. Where Wife Has _ Sufficiency, — Where ,a wife owned property yielding an an- nual rental of $300, besides having other in- vestments, and was not entirely blameless, it was held that she was not entitled to alimony although her husband owned 300 acres of land worth $12,000, which, however, was covered by a mortgage . for $7,500, and be was otherwjsg 259' 135-138 ALIMONY. Vol. II. When Husband Has Already Provided for Wife. — See note 3. Where the Parties Accustomed to Kely upon Their Joint Labors. — See note I. (3) Dependencies — Children. — See note 2. Children Intrusted to Mother. — See note 3. But Where the Children Are Grown Up. — See note 5. (4) Conduct of the Parties. — See note 6. Wife's Misconduct. — See note I. c. Effect of Agreement Between the Parties— Brfow Divore*. ■ See note 2. After Divorce. — See note 4. Court Adopting Agreement of the Parties. — See note 5- 128. See note 1. d. Illustrations as to Amount. — See note 3. 135. 136. 127. in debt. Henry v. Henry, 76 S. W. Rep. 130. 25 Ky. L. Rep. 596. 125. 3. Not Bar to Alimony.— This, how- ever, is not a bar to the wife's right to alimony, though it may be considered in determining the amount. McKnight v. McKnight, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 62. 126. 1. Where Parties Labored Jointly.— Where the wife is of middle age and in good health and in great part supporting herself, in the absence of any reason shoeing why perma- nent alimony should be made, an order to that effect will not be made. Abele v. Abele, 62 N. J. Ed.. 644- 2.. Bloom v. Bloom, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 433. 8. Maintenance of Children. — Anderson v. Anderson, 123 Cal. 48, 71 Am. St. Rep. 17; Harding v. Harding, 79 111. App. 590. Where the mother was awarded the custody of four small children, an allowance of one-half of the personal property and of two hundred acres of land she had assisted her husband in accumulating, was held not excessive. Crab- tree v. Crabtree, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 211. 5. Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 58 N. J. Eq. 570. 6. Conduct of Parties to Be Considered. — Donnelly v. Donnelly, 78 S. W. Rep. 182, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1543. 127. 1. Wife in Fault. — Goodsell v. Good- sell, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 65, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 127; Stearns v. Stearns, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 630. In Smith v. Smith, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 678, it was held that if the wife was the prin- cipal cause of the family disturbances, she was not entitled to alimony,, especially as the hus- band was in poor health and had barely enough to support himself in his old age. 2. Agreement Intended to Promote Dissolution Void. — Birch v. Anthony, 109 Ga. 350, 77 Am. St. Rep. 379, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 127; Foote v. Nickerson, 70 N. H. 496; Buttlar v. Buttlar, 57 N. J. Eq. 645, 73 Am. St. Rep. 648 ; Poillon v. Poillon, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 666, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 341 ; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Utah 47. Compare Bishop v. Bishop, (1897) P. i?8; Barry v. Barry, (1901) P. 87; King v. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683; Gib- bons v. Gibbons, (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 710 ; Kefauver v. Kefauver, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 467 ; Parsons v. Parsons, 62 S. W. Rep. 719, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 223 ; Vandegrift v. Van- degrift, 63 N. J. Eq. 124. And see generally the ^t}e. Il,LiiqAii go^NTRACTS, 4. Fleming v. Peterson, 167 111. 465 ; Gar- rett v. Garrett, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 112. 5. Collier v. Collier, 66 111. App. 484; Mas- terson v. Masterson, (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 20. 12§. 1. Cavenaugh v. Cavenaugh, 106 111. App. 209. 3. The Following Allowances Have Been Made, — Three thousand pounds a year, where the husband's annual income was nineteen thou- sand pounds. Kettlewell f. Kettlewell, (1898) P. 138. Five hundred dollars a year alimony and three hundred dollars a year for the support of each of two children, when this amount is but a little more than half of the defendant's income. Valentine v. Valentine, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 156. An allowance of $2,400, where the husband's income is $4,500 per year and the wife was given the custody of four children. Harris v. Harris, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 123. Fourteen hundred dollars, where the hus- band owned personal property worth about $1,140 and a farm worth about $3,350. Tem- pleton v. Templeton, 126 Mich. 44. For various other instances, see the follow- ing cases: Rast v. Rast, 113 Ala. 319; Staple- berg v. Stapleberg, (Conn. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 233; Elzas v. Elzas, 171 111. 632; Driver v. Driver, (Ind. 1898) 52 N. E. Rep. 401 ; Dor- sey v. Dorsey, 29 Ind. App. 248 ; Haight v. Haight, (Iowa 1900) 82 N. W. Rep. 443 ; Aitchison v. Aitchison, 99 Iowa 93 ; Walker v. Walker, (Iowa 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 435; Rus- sell v. Russell, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 619; Trapp v. Trapp, (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 213; Bristow v. Bristow, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 819; Baker v. Baker, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 729 ; Thompson v. Thompson, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 730 ; Dale v. Hauer, 109 La. 711 ; Gagneaux v. Desonier, 51 La. Ann. 1095 ; Adams' v. Seibly, 115 Mich. 402 ; Schabel v. Schabel, 115 Mich. 487 ; Horning v. Horning, 107 Mich. 587; Kirkland v. Kirkland, m Mich. 166; Streit- wolf v. Streitwolf, (N: J. 1900) 47 Atl. Rep. 14; Mayer v. Mayer, (N. J. 1901) 49 Atl. Rep. 1078; Read v. Read, (Utah 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 675; Trimble v. Trimble, 97 Va. 217; Owens v. Owens, 96 Va. 191. Excessive Allowances. — Where the husband earned from his profession about $5,000 a year and owned real estate worth $15,000, the greater part of which was unproductive, an allowance of $7,500 as alimony was held to be, excessive^ Irwin ^r, Irwin, 105 Ky, 6^a, Vol. II. ALIMONY. 139-136 129. 5. Mode of Allowance — Periodical Payments. — See note I. 130. Divesting Husband of Fee Simple. — See note I. Consent of Parties. — See note 3. Statute! Authorizing Sum in Groat — Portion of Estate — Restoration of Property. — See note 6. 132. 6. Lien Of Alimony — Pendency of Bill for Divorce and Alimony. — See note 6. 133. Effeot of Decree for Alimony. — See notes 2, 3. 1 34. Intervening Creditors. — See note I . Transfers by Husband — Good Faith. — See note 3. In Anticipation of Divorce Proceedings. — See note 4. 135. 7. Commencement of Payment. — See note 4. 136. 8. Modification of Allowance — a. In General. — See note 1. An allowance of $75 per month as alimony has been held excessive where the husband's estate merely consisted of land worth about $19,000 and he had others dependent upon him. Gooding v. Gooding, 104 Ky. 755. Where a wife has, in her own right, prop- erty worth about $6,500 an award of $5,500 as alimony is excessive if the husband, sixty-five years of age, is left with encumbered property to the value of $22,700, from which he must pay an indebtedness of $6,000 and the alimony. Kimbro v. Kimbro, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 371. An allowance of an unencumbered farm valued at $6,000, and $400 in cash and $100 a year for two years and $50 a year for three years, was held to be excessive where the hus- band was worth only about $17,000 and owed $4,900. Roelke v. Roelke, 103 Wis. 204. For Further Illustrations as to Amount, see An- derson v. Anderson, 124 Cal. 48, 71 Am. St. Rep. 17; Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 29 Colo. 295, 93 Am. St. Rep. 64; Aurand v. Aurand, 157 111. 321 ; Stutsman v. Stutsman, 30 Ind. App. 645 ; Goldie v. Goldie, 123 Iowa 178; McDonald v. McDonald, 117 Iowa 307; Kefauver v. Kefau- ver, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 467; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 128 Mich. 635 ; Donaldson v. Don- aldson, 134 Mich. 289; Van Der Beck v. Van Der Beck, 124 Mich. 479; Tietken v. Tietken, 60 Neb. 138; Randall v. Randall, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 423 ; Hoernig v. Hoernig, 109 Wis. 229 ; Lindenmann v. Lin- denmann, 118 Wis. 175; McChesney v. Mc- Chesney, 91 Wis. 268. 129. 1. Payment by Instalments. — Twenty- man v. Twentyman, (1903) P. 82. 130. 1. Husband Kay Not Be Divested of Fee Simple. — But this does not mean that the wife may not enforce a judgment for alimony by execution against the property' of the hus- band. Tyler v. Tyler, 99 Ky. 31. Where Husband and Wife Hold Jointly a decree may be made awarding the property to the wife, where the husband owns other prop- erty. Reeves v. Reeves, 117 Mich. 526. 3. Agreement of Parties to Gross Sum. — Mac- lurcan v. Maclurcan, 77 L. T. N. S. 474. 6. Allowance in Gross — Division of Estate, Etc. — Marsh v. Marsh, 162 Ind. 210; Gooding v. Gooding, 104 Ky. 755 ; De Roche v. De Roche, 12 N. Dak. 17: Uhl v. Irwin, 3 Okla. 388; Hubbard v. Hubbard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 388; Hooper v. Hooper, 102 Wis. 598. Household Furniture. — Fletcher v. Fletcher, (Ky. igoo) 54 S. W. Rep. 953. 132. 6. Eights of Purchasers. — A convey- ance by the husband pending an action for divorce, which is made for the purpose of de- feating a claim for alimony, passes a good title except as against the wife. Fiske v. Fiske, 173 Mass. 413. See also the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances. 133^ 2. When Lien Created by Decree. — Campbell v. Trosper, 108 Ky. 602; Glick v. Glick, 110 Mich. 304; Trumble v. Trumble, 26 Wash. 133. Statutory Lien. — Foulds v. Foulds, 12 Mani- toba 389. 3. Court May Make Allowance a Charge. — Gaston v. Gaston, 114 Cal. 542, 55 Am. St. Rep. 86 ; Huellmantel v. Huellmantel, 124 Cal. 583 ; Fletcher v. Fletcher, tKy. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 953- Property of Nonresident. — Bailey v. Bailey, 127 N. Car. 474. Lands Situated in Another County. — Wesner v. O'Brien, 56 Kan. 724, 54 Am. St. Rep. 604. No Property in State. - — Alimony cannot be allowed where the husband is nonresident and has no property in the state. Johnson v. Mat- thews, 124 Iowa 255; Rea v. Rea, 123 Iowa 241. Restraint of Alienation Until Security for Ali- mony Is Given. — See Twentyman v. Twenty- man, (1903) P. 82. 134. 1. John 'v. John, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 535, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 328. 3, Johnson v. Johnson, 22 Colo. 20, 55 Am. St. Rep. 113. 4. Fraudulent Transfers. — Ruffenach v. Ruf- fenach, 13 Colo. App. 102; De Ruiter v. De Ruiter, 28 Ind. App. 9, 91 Am. St. Rep. 107; Dougan v. Dougan, 90 Minn. 471, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 134. See also the title Fraudulent Sales and Convey- ances. Wife Within Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances. — Hall v, Harrington, 7 Colo. App. 474 ; Maze v. Griffin, 65 Mo. App. 377 ; Maharry v. Ma- harry, 5 Okla. 371. See also the title Fraudu- lent Sales and Conveyances. When Husband, Pending Suit for Divorce. — Ruffenach v. Ruffenach, 13 Colo. App. 102. 135. 4. Carroll v. Carroll, 48 La. Ann. 835. 136. 1. Permanent Alimony upon Divorce a Mensa. — Dushinsky v. Dushinsky, (Supm. Ct App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 638. 261 136-130 ALIMONY. Vol. II. 136. 137. 138. 139. But in the Case of a Decree a Vinculo. — See notes 3, 4, 5- Change Should Be Made with Caution. — See notes I, 2. Wife Acquiring Property — Husband's Eeduced faculties. — See notes 4, $• Wife's Needs Greater or Husband's Resources Greater. — See note 3. When Education of Children Completed. — See note 6. An Agreement Is No Bar. — See note 7. b. Remarriage. — See note 9. See notes 1, 2. c. Subsequent Adultery of Woman. — See note 3. • 1 36. 3. Divorce a Vinculo — General Rule, No Alteration. — Coffee v. Coffee, 101 Ga. 787; Law v. Law, 64 Ohio St. 369 ; Bassett v. Bas- sett, 99 Wis. 344; Reinhard v. Reinhard, 96 Wis. 555. 4. Qualification — Reservation in Decree. — Ex p. O'Brien, (Cal. 1897) 48 Pac. Rep. 71; Alexander v. Alexander, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 334; Demonet v. Burkhart, 23 App. (D. C.) 308; Daugherty v. Daugherty, 171 111. App. 301 ; Franck v. Franck, 107 Ky. 362. New York. — Before the passage of the amend- ments of 1894 and 1895 to Code Civ. Pro., § 1759, the courts did not have power to modify a decree for alimony after the entry of final judgment. Walker v. Walker, 155 N. Y. 77. See also Gould v. Gould, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 334; Noble v. Noble, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 395 ; Hauscheld v. Hauscheld, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 296 ; Livingston v. Liv- ingston, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 18. 5. Qualification — Statutory Authorization — California. — Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 118 Cal. 18. Colorado. — Stevens v. Stevens, 31 Colo. 188. District of Columbia. — Alexander v. Alex- ander, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 334, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 136; De- monet v. Burkhart, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 308, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 136. Georgia. — Sumner v. Sumner, 118 Ga. 408. Illinois. — Craig v. Craig, 163 111. 176; Welty v. Welty, 96 111. App. 141 ; Cavenaugh v. Cave- naugh, 106 111. App. 209; Shaw v. Shaw, 59 111. App. 268. Kentucky. — " It is always in the power of the chancellor, if the conditions change, to change the amount of alimony to conform to the necessities of the case." Bristow v. Bris- tow, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 819. Minnesota. — Holmes v. Holmes, 90 Minn. 466; Barbaras v. Barbaras, 88 Minn. 105. Missouri. — ■ Burnside v. Wand, 77 Mo. App. 382 ; Scales v. Scales, 65 Mo. App. 292. New Jersey. — Rigney . Am, and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 200. 201. 1. Becovery Against Maker. — Hamp- ton v. Mayes, 3 Indian Ter. 65 ; Jeffrey v. Rosenfeld, 179 Mass. 509; Savage v. Savage, 36 Oregon 272, citing 2 Am, AND ENO. EkcvC, 970 Vol. II. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. 301-314 301. (cc) Return, of Writing. — See note 5. 303. cc. Where Alteration Is Fraudulent. — See notes I, 2. dd. Effect on Mortgage of Alteration of Mortgage Note — Innocently M ade — See notes 3, 4. 304. (d) On Instrument as Evidence — cc. To Prove Title. — See note 4. dd. To Prove Original Contract. — See note 6. 305. (3) By Consent of Grantor or Promisor — (a) In General. — Se< notes 2, 3. 310. (g) Changes to Conform Instrument to Intention of Parties — aa. In General — Aooording to Some Authorities, May Be Done Only in Equity. — See note 2. 311. According to Some Authorities, May Be Done with Consent of Parties. — See note 1 bl>. Correction of Mistakes. — See note 2. 313. See note 1. Must Be to Conform to Intention of All the Parties, and Not of One Only. — See note 3. cc Supplying Omissions — Filling Blanks. — See note 4. 314. c. By a Stranger to the Contract — (2) Rule in the United States — English Rule Disapproved. — See note 2. Rule Applicable Alike to Sealed and Unsealed Instruments. — See notes 4, 5' at Law (2d ed.) 200 ; Wallace v. Tice, 32 Oregon 283 ; Keene v. Weeks, 19 R. I. 309. 201. 5. Return of Note a Condition of Right to Sue. — See Savage v. Savage, 36 Oregon z68. 202. 1. Effect of Fraudulent Alteration. — Hayes v. Wagner, 89 111. App. 390 ; Hocknell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 360, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 202; McClure v. Little, 15 Utah 379, 62 Am. St. Rep. 938. 2. Fraudulent Alteration of Promissory Note. — Maguire v. Eichraeier, iog Iowa 301 ; Hocknell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 360, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 202; Jeffrey v. Rosen- feld, 179 Mass. 509, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 202 ; Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Laughlin, 4 N. Dak. 391 ; Wallace v. Tice, 32 Oregon 283. 8. Where Note Operates as Payment of Debt. — Simpson v. Sheley, 9 Kan. App. Si 2, citing a Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 202. 4. Where There Is No Fraud. — Simpson v. Sheley, 9 Kan. App. 512, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 202. See Kime v. Jesse, 32 Neb. 606. 204. 4. Altered Deed as Proof of Title,— Burgess v. Blake, 128 Ala. 105, 86 Am. St. Rep. 78, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 204. 8. Altered Instrument as Evidence of Original Contract. — " In order to affect the question of the admissibility of a writing in evidence it must appear that the alteration was in a part material to the question in dispute." Sullivan v. California Realty Co., 142 Cal. "zoi. 205. 2. Made with Consent. — Nichols v. Rosenfeld, 181 Mass. 525; Martin v. Buffaloe, 121 N. Car. 34, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 205. Implied Assent of Obligor. — Kane v. Herman, 109 Wis. 33. Whether Consent and Alteration Must Be Con- temporaneous. — Where it is expressly agreed that the alteration shall be made, and this is done by the payee, though without the knowl- edge of the payor, then an action may be main- tained on the note, for no more has been done than to carry out the intention of the parties Phillips v. Crips, 108 Iowa 605. The Obligor May Enforce at his option a con- tract which has been altered by the obligee Lane v. Pacific, etc., R. Co., 8 Idaho 230. With Assent of Obligee. — Taylor v. Graves, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 107, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 31 3. Martin v. Buffaloe, 121 N. Car. 36, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 205 210. 2. View that Correction Must Be ii Equity. — See McClure v. Little, 15 Utah 379 62 Am. St. Rep. 938. 211. 1. View that Correction May Be Mad with Consent of Parties. — See Newman v. King 54 Ohio St. 273, 56 Am. St. Rep. 705. Altering Instrument to Conform with Intention — Lee v. Butler, 167 Mass. 426, 57 Am. St Rep. 466. 2. Correction of Mistake in Note by Payee. - Osborn v. Hall, 160 Ind. 153, citing 2 Am. ani Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 211, 212. 212. 1. Correction of Mistakes in Mortgagee — In re Howgate, (1902) 1 Ch. 451, 86 L. T N. S. 180. 3. Osborn v. Hall, 160 Ind. 160, citing i Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 211 212; Reynolds v. Smitz, g Ohio Cir. Dec. 484 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 84. But see Wallace v. Tice 32 Oregon 283. 4. Insertion of the Time of Payment of Interes according to intention and agreement of partie; will not vitiate the instrument. McClure v Little, is Utah 379, 62 Am. St. Rep. 938. 214. 2. Disapproval of English Rule. — Set White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, citing 2 Am. ani Eng. Encyc. of Law (zd ed.) 214. 4. Unsealed Instruments. — Powell v. Banks 146 Mo. 620; Colby v. Foxworthy, (Neb. 1904] 100 N. W. Rep. 798; Deering Harvester Co. v White, no Tenn. 132. 5. Promissory Notes. — Forbe9 v. Taylor, i3< Ala. 286 ; Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 53, citini 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.' 214; Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed." 214; Jeffrey v. Rosenfeld, 179 Ma9s. 509 McMurtrey v, Sparks, 71 Mo, kpp. 126; Hayi 271 215-221 ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Vol. II. 215. See note 3. 216. (3) Who Is to Be Considered a Stranger — (0) Public Officer Required to Approve Bond. — See note I . Alteration at Time of Approval. — See note 2. d. By Agent of Grantee or Obligee — in the united stateB — Agent with Authority. — See note 4. 217. Agent Without Authority. — See note I. e. By the Grantor or Promisor — (1) In General. — See note 2. (3) By Grantor in Deed or Lease. — See note 4. (4) By Promisor in Note. — See note 6. (5) By Part Only of Grantors or Promisors — General Bule. — See 218. notes 1, 3. 220. note 4. 221. /. By Agent of Grantor or Promisor. — See note 1. 3. Immaterial Alterations — a. By Grantee or Promisee. — See In the United State* — In Several States Strict Bule Obtains. — See note 5- Prevailing Bule. — See note 2. v. Odom, 79 Mo. App. 425; Perkins Windmill, Promisors. — Mattingly v. Riley, (Ky. 1899) 49 etc., Co. v. Tillman, 55 Neb. 652; Foxworthy v. Colby, 64 Neb. 216; Tarbill v. Richmond City Mill Works, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 643; White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 214; Acme Harvester Co. v. Butterfield, 12 S. Dak. 91. 215. 3. Mortgages. — Mathias v. Leathers, 99 Iowa 18. 216. 1. Schlageck v. Widhalm, 59 Neb. 541. 2. When Altered at Time of Approval. — Schlageck v. Widhalm, 59 Neb. 541. 4. Alteration by Agent with Authority. — Deering Harvester Co v. White, no Tenn. 132, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 216. Where an agent without authority alters an instrument and subsequently the payee with knowledge of his agent's act sues on the in- strument, he thereby ratines the agent's act and it becomes his own and the instrument is avoided. Perkins Windmill, etc., Co. v. Till- man, 55 Neb. 652. 217. 1. Alterations by Agent Without Au- thority. — Forbes v. Taylor, 139 Ala. 286 ; Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 53, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 217; Paterson v. Higgins, 58 111. App. 268 ; Mathias v. Leathers, 99 Iowa 18; Hays v. Odom, 79 Mo. App. 425; Waldorf v. Simpson, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 297 ; Acme Harvester Co. v. Butterfield, 12 S. Dak. 91 ; Deering Harvester Co. -v. White, no Tenn. 132, citing 2 Am. a'nd Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 216. 2. Discharge of Surety. — vVhere an agree- ment which is to be construed with a bond is materially altered by the promisor with the consent of the promisee, a surety on the bond is thereby discharged. French v. Graves, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 522. See also Lancaster v. Barrett, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 9. 4. Alteration in Conveyance of Land by Grantor. — Fulton v. Priddy, 123 Mich. 298, 81 Am. St. Rep. 201, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 217. 6. An Alteration by the Maker with the Consent of the Payee discharges the surety on a note. McAlpin v. Clark, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 364. SUS, I, Alteration, of Note by Part Only of S. W. Rep. 799. 3. Alteration Before Delivery to Obligee or Promisee.— See Connor v. Thornton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) ?t S. W. Rep. 354. 220. 1. Alteration by an Agent of a Mort gagor of a Chattel Mortgage does not vitiate the instrument. Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. O'Marr, 18 Mont. 568. 4. Present English Bule — Alteration Must Be Material to Vitiate Instrument. — In re How- gate, (1902J 1 Ch. 451, 86 L. T. N. S. 180. 5. Strict Bule. — Jones v. Crowley, 57 N. J. L. 222 ; Bailey v. Gilman Bank, 99 Mo. App. 571 ; Powell v. Banks, 146 Mo. 620 ; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422. 221 . 2. Prevailing Bule — Immaterial Altera- tion Does Not Vitiate — United States. — Butte First Nat. Bank v. Weidenbeck, (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 896. Colorado. — Creede First Nat. Bank v. Miner, 9 Colo. App. 361. Delaware. — Warder, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 2 Marv. (Del.) 275. Georgia. — Brice v. Sheffield, 118 Ga. 128. Indiana. — Casto v. Evinger, 17 Ind. App. 298. Indian Territory. — . Taylor v. Acom, 1 Indian Ter. 436. Iowa. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397; James v. Dalbey, 107 Iowa 463 ; Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sigstad, 96 Iowa 491. Kansas. — Galva First Nat. Bank v. Nord- strom, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 804; McCor- mick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Lauber, 7 Kan. App. 730- Kentucky. — Keene v. Miller, 103 Ky. 628; Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265 ; Heddrick v. Huffaker, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1130. Massachusetts. — -James v. Tilton, 183 Mass. 275- Michigan. — Prudden v. Nester, 103 Mich. 540. Minnesota. — Theopold v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607. Missouri. — Kelly v. Thuey, (Mo. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 516. See also Heman v. Gilliam, 171 Mo. 258. New York. — John Polhemus Printing Co, v. Halkr.be.ck, 46 N, Y. App, Div, 563, 272 Vol. II. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. 323-336 223. See note I. IV. Materiality of Alterations — 1. Constituent Elements of Material Alterations — - a. In General. — See note 4. 333. b. Must Change Legal Effect of Instrument — (1) In General. — See note 1. 224. An Alteration Will Bo Material. — See note 4. 225. (2) Changes Which Enlarge Liability of Party. — See note 3. Change Whereby Liability Is Reduced. — See note 4. Test. — ■ See note 5. (3) Addition of Special Clauses or New Terms. — See note 6. 226. (4) Addition of Words Waiving Notice and Protest. — See note 1. North Dakota. — J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Ebbighausen, 11 N. Dak. 466. Oregon. — Brown v. Feldwert, (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 414. South Carolina. — Gunter v. Addy, 58 S. Car. 178. 222. 1. Immaterial Alterations Made with Fraudulent Intent. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397 ; Kelly v. Thuey, (Mo. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 516; Theopold v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607. 4. Essentials of Material Alteration — Ala- bama. — Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 392; Brown v. Johnson, 127 Ala. 296, 85 Am. St. Rep. 134. Georgia. — Winkles v. Guenther, 98 Ga. 472. Illinois. — Landt v. McCullough, 206 111. 214, reversing 103 111. App. 668 ; Cook v. Moulton, 59 111. 'App. 428. Indiana. — Casto v. Evinger, 1 7 Ind. App. 298. Iowa. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 222. Kansas. — Galva First Nat. Bank v. Nord- strom, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 804. Kentucky. — Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 26s. Minnesota. — Theopold v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607. Nebraska. — Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903)' 97 N. W. Rep. 443 ; Foxworthy v. Colby, 64 Neb. 216. North Dakota. — Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. ssi. Ohio. — Carlile v. Lamb, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 70. Oklahoma. — Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513- Evidence or Mode of Proof. — Any alteration which changes the evidence or mode of proof is material. Brady v. Berwind-White Coal Min. Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 28. 223. 1. General Rule — Alteration Must Change Legal Effect of Instrument — United States. — Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc., R. Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 371. Colorado. — Creede First Nat. Bank v. Miner, 9 Colo. App. 361. Florida. — Turnipseed v. State, (Fla. 1903) 33 So. Rep. 851. Iowa. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 222; James v. Dalby, 107 Iowa 463; Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sigstad, 96 Iowa 401. Kansas. — Galva First Nat. Bank v. Nord- strom, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 804. Kentucky. — Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265;Heddrick v. Huffaker, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. .Rep. 1 1 30. I Supp. E. of L. — 18 Massachusetts.- — Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488 ; James v. Tilton, 183 Mass. 275. Michigan. — • Prudden v. Nester, 103 Mich. 540. Minnesota. — Theopold v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607. Missouri. — Kelly v. Thuey, (Mo. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 316; Bailey v. Gilman Bank, 99 Mo. App. 571. Texas. — Hutches v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 60 ; Chamberlain v. Wright, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 707; Marx v. Luling Co-Operative Assoc, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 408. Miscellaneous Instances of Immaterial Altera- tion. — The erasure of the words " and grace " does not alter the legal effect of a note where by the general mercantile law such note is en- titled to days of grace. Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8. 224. 4. Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136; Armstrong v. Penn, 105 Ga. 229 ; Brannum Lumber Co. v. Pickard, (Ind. App. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 676 ; McKinney v. Cabell, 24 Ind. App. 676 ; White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 6s, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 224. 225. 3. Change Extending Liability. — Jor- dan v. Long, 109 Ala. 414; Carlisle v. People's Bank, 122 Ala. 446; Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 443. See also Lan- caster v. Barrett, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 9. 4. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52 ; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. McKernan, 100 Ky. 97 ; Ford v. Cameron First Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 684. 5. Test of Materiality. — Zeigler v. Hallahan, (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 205; Brady v. Ber- wind-White Coal Min. Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 28; Carroll v. Warren, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 687; Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66; White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 6s, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225. 6. Special Clauses — New Terms. — Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136; McGavock v. Morton, 57 Neb. 385; Whiter. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 225. Interlineation of Acceptance of Contract Over Indorsement on a Written Proposal. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397. Waiver of Homestead added to an acknowl- edgment is a material alteration. Rosenberg v. Jett, 72 Fed. Rep. 90. 226. 1. Schwartz u. Wilmer, 90 Md. 143, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 226; Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 443. 273 937-333 ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Vol. II. (i) In Gen- Collateral or Reference Memo- 227. c. Must Be in Material Part of Instrument - eral. — See note i. (2) Change in Marginal Figures. — See note 2. (3) Removal or Addition of Memoranda ■ randa. — See notes 3, 4. 228. See notes r, 2, 3. memoranda Forming Part of Instrument. — See notes 6, J 229. 2. Change in Respect to Parties — a. In General. — See note 4. 230. b. Substitution of Parties — Grantees, promisees. — See note 1. c Changing Personality of Parties by Addition or Erasure of Words. — See note 4. The Addition of the Word " Cashier." — See note 5. 231. d. Addition or Erasure of Words Descriptio Persons. — See note 2. 232. e. Formal Changes in Name of Party. — See note 2. /. Addition of Parties — General Euie. — See note 4. 233. As to the Original Sureties. — See notes I, 2. 327, 1. Obliterating Indorsement of a Pay- ment on a note does not avoid the instrument. Lau v. Blomberg, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 206. 2. Change in marginal Figures of Bill or Note. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; Merritt v, Boyden, 191 111. 136. 85 Am. St. Rep. 246; Goodin v. Plugge, 47 Neb. 284. 8. Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 393, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc, of Law (2d ed.) 227. 4. Removal of memorandum Not Part of Instru- ment.' — U. S. Glass Co. v. Mathews, (C. C. A.) 89 Fed. Rep, 828 ; Payne v. Long, 131 Ala. 393, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 227. Erasing an Indorsement of a Partial Payment is not an alteration of the instrument. Theo- pold v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607; Lau v- Blomberg, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 206. 228. 1. Change Affecting Some Only of Parties. — An indorsement setting out that the indorser will pay seven per cent, is collateral to the main contract. Boutelle v. Carpenter, 182 Mass. 417, Collateral Memorandum. — Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 393, quoting 2 Am, and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 228. 2. Reference Memorandum. — Mente v. Town- send, §8 Ark. 39i ; Light v. Killinger, 16 Ind. App. 102, 59 Am, St. Rep, 313. 3. Merchants' Bank v, Brown, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 599. 6, Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 393, quoting 2 Am. and Eng, Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 228. 7. memorandum Constituting Part of Instrument, — Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 393, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 228 ; Mater v. American Nat. Bank, 8 Colo, App. 325 ; Cas- sopolis First Nat. Bank v. Carter, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 585 ; Law v. Crawford, 67 Mo. App, 130, See also HiUsboro First Nat. Bank v. Mack, 35 Oregon 122, Severance of Note and "Stub" Containing Quali- fying Conditions, — Cassopolis First Nat. Bank v. Carter, (Mich. 1904) iqi N. W. Rep. 585. Obliterating ox Placing Memorandum on Back of Note. — Reed v. Culp, 63 Kan. 595. 229. 4. Change in Personality, Number, or Relations of Parties to Instrument. — Sneed v. Sabinal Min., etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 493 ; Sheley v. Sampson, 5 Kan. App. 465 ; Roch- ford v, McGee, 16 S. Dak. 606, 192 Am. St. Rep. 719. Obliterating the Name of the Bank upon which a check is drawn and substituting therefor an- other bank is a material alteration. Morris v. Beaumont Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 36. Insurance Policy. — Changing the beneficiary from "A. H. Fletcher & Son" to "A. H. Fletcher " is a material alteration. Fletcher v. Minneapolis F. & M. Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Minn. 152. 230. 1. Substitution of Grantee or Promisee. — Casto v. Evinger, 17 Ind. App. 298. Com- pare James v. Tilton, 183 Mass. 275. 4. The Addition of the Word " Guardian " after the payee's name is » material alteration vitiating the liability of a surety. Jackson v. Cooper, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 39. 6. Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397. 231. 2. Where Words Are Descriptio Per- sona;. — Casto v. Evinger, 1 7 Ind. App. 298 ; Birmingham Trust, etc., Co. v. Whitney, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 280 ; Flitqraft v. Commonwealth Title Ins., etc., Co., (Pa. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 557 ; Marx v. Luling Co-operative Assoc, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 408. 232. 2. Correcting Name of Party. — In re Howgate, (1902) 1 Ch. 451, 71 L. J. Ch. 279, 86 L. T. N. S. 180. 4. Addition of Parties — General Bule. — See Phoenix Ins. Co. v, McKernan, 10.0 Ky. 97 ; Ford v. Cameron First Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 684. Compare Tay- lor v. Acorn, 1 Indian Ter.436. The addition of another name to a note be- fore its delivery does not release those pre- viously . signing it, though done without their knowledge. Edwards v. Mattingly, 107 Ky. 333; Evans v. Partin, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 648, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 232. 233. 1. Addition of Other makers or Sureties — Effect upon Original Sureties. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397 ; State v. Paxton, 65 Neb. no. 2. See Boyd v. Agricultural Ins. Co., (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 986. 274 Vol. II. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. 333-340 333. Aa to the Original Makers, — See notes 3, 4. 234. See note 1. Liability of the Additional Promisor. — See note 2. g. Erasure of Names of Parties — Nam* of Principal. — See note 4. 335. Name of Surety. — See notes 3, 4. 330. 3. Change in Joint or Several Nature of Contract. — See note 1. 237. 5. Change in Date. — See note 1. 238. 6. Change in Amount of Principal. — See notes 1, 2. Provision for Attorney's Fees. — See notes 4, 5- 239. 7. Change in Interest — Alteration of Bate. — See notes 1, 2, 4. Insertion of Interest Clause. — See note 5- Erasure of Interest Clause. — See note 6. 240. Alteration of Time from Which Interest to Bull. — See notes I, 2. Alteration in Periods of Payment. — See note 3. 8. Change in Medium of Payment. — See note 4. The President Signing the Bond after the sure- ties have signed does not vitiate the instru- ment. Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Stone, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 62. 233. 3. Additional Parties to Note — Effect upon Original Maker. — Butte First Nat. Bank v. Weidenbeck, 87 Fed. Rep. 271 ; Brown v-. Johnson, 127 Ala. 296, 85 Am. St. Rep. 134, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 233 ; Ford f. Cameron First Nat. Bank) (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 684. 4. Additional Surety — Effect upon Original Promisor. - — Brown v. Johnson, 127 Ala. 296, 85 Am. St. Rep. 134, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 233. 234. 1. Butte First Nat. Bank v. Weiden- beck, (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 896; Taylor v. AGom, 1 Indian Ter. 436 ; Babeock v. Murray, 58 Minn. 385 ; Royse v. State Nat. Bank, So Neb. 16. See also U. S. Glass Co. v. Mathews, (C. C. A.) 89 Fed. Rep. 828. 2. liability Of Additional Maker or Surety. — Evans v. Partiru (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 648. 4. Erasure of Name of Principal. — Connor v. Thornton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 31 S. W. Rep. 354- 235. 3. Erasure Of Name of One of Several Sureties in a Bond. — Cass County v. American Exch. State Bank, 9 N. Dak. 263. 4, Erasure of Name of Surety on Note. — Butte First Nat. Bank ii. Weidenbeck, 87 Fed. Rep. 271 ; International Bank v. Parker, 88 Mo. App. 117. 236. 1. Changing Words " I Promise " into "We Promise." — Banque Provinciate v. Ar- nold!, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 624. Changing Joint Note into Joint and Several. — Landauer^. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205. 237. 1. Rule as to Change in Date, -^- U. S. Glass Co. v. Mathews,- (C. C. A.) 89 Fed. Rep. 828; Brannum Lumber Co. v. Pickard, (Ind. App. 1904) 71 N. E. Rep. 676; McCormick Har- vesting Mach. Co. v. Lauber, 7 Kah. App. 736, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. OF" Law (2d ed.) 237 J Sheley v. Sampson, 5 Kan. App. 465 ; Tranter ». Hibbetd, 108 Ky. 26*5 ; McMur- trey v. Sparks, 71 Mo. App. 126; McMillan v. Hefrerliti, 18 Mont. 385; Cambria Iron Co. v. KeyneB, g6 Ohio St. 501, citing 2 Am. and Eng. ESfiYd. OF Law (2d ed.) 23? ; Newman f . King, 54 Ohio St. 273, 56 Affl; St. Rep. 765 ; Wallace v. Tice, 32 Oregon 283. 238. 1. Changing Amount of Principal. — Winkles v. Guenther, 98 Ga. 472 ; Maguire v. Eichmeier, 109 Iowa 301 ; Schlageck v. Wid- halm, 59 Neb. 541 ; Moss v. Maddux, 108 Tenn. 405 ; White v. Harris 6g S. Car. 65, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 238. See also Heard v. Tappan, 116 Ga. 930. 2. Decreasing Amount of Principal. — White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, quoting 2 AM. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 238. See also Chamberlain V. Wright, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 707 ; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Mc- Kernan, 100 Ky. 97. 4. Erasure of Provision for Attorney's Fees. — White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, quoting 2 AM. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 238. 5. Change in Amount Of Attorney's Fees. — White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 238. 239. 1. Increasing Bate of Interest. — Hill v. O'Neill, 1 01 Ga. 832 ; Phillips v. Crips, 108 Iowa 605 ; Handley v. Barrows, 68 Mo. App. 623 ; Tucker v. Hendricks, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 426. Contra. — Where the change in the rate does not alter the legal liability of a surety the al- teration will be immaterial and the surety will not be discharged. Keene v. Miller, 103 Ky. 628. 2. Decreasing Bate of Interest. -*■ Fillmore County v. Greenleaf, 80 Minn. 242 ; Edwards v. Sartor, 69 S. Car. 540. 4. Insertion of Legal Bate, — James v. Dalbey, 107 Iowa 463 ; McAlpin v. Clark, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 364. 5. Adding Interest Clause. — Moore v. Hiri- shaw, 23 Ind. App. 267, 77 Am. St. Rep. 434; Derr v. Keaough, 96 Iowa 397 ; Commercial Bank V. Maguire, 89 Mihn. 394 ; Otto v. Halff, 89 Tex. 384, 59" Am. St. Rep. $6 ; Farmers, etc., Nat. Bank v. Nrtvich, 89 Tex. 381. 6. Erasure of Interest Clause. ^=- Robertson v. Vasey, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 271. 240. 1. Accelerating Time of Interest. — Sheley z>. Sampson, 5 Kan. App. 465 ; Hockflell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 357 ; Simpson v. Sheley, 9 Kan. App. 512; Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Oregon 64. B. Delaying Time, of Interest. — Commercial Bank v. Maguire, 89 Mihn. 394. 8. Alteration in Periods of Payment of Interest. — Sawyer v. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397 ; McClure v. Little, 15 Utah 379, 62 Am. St. Rep. 938. 4. Addition of Words Denoting Kind df CurMfioy, — Foxworthy v. Coiby, 64 Neb. iti,. m 941-353 ALTERA TION OF INSTRUMENTS. Vol. II. 341. 9. Change in Time of Payment. — See notes i, 2. 10. Change in Place of Payment. — See note 4. 343. 11. Change in Statement of Consideration. — See note 4. 12. Change in Description of Property. — See note 5. 343. See notes 1, 2. 344. 13. Change in Negotiability — Altering Non-negotiable to Negotiable Instrn ment. — See notes 2, 4. 345. See note 1. Change in Manner of Negotiability. — See note 4. 14. Change in Attestation — Inserting Signature of Attesting WitneBB. — See note 6. 347. 15. Affixing or Removing Seal — Affixing Seal. — See note 1. 351. V. Filling Blanks — 1. By Express Parol Agreement — b. Sealed INSTRUMENTS — (4) Perfecting Merely Incomplete Instrument — (b) Bule in the United States — Parol Authority Sufficient in Some Jurisdictions. — See note 4. 353. See notes 1, 2. 353. Blanks Filled by Agent with Parol Authority. — See note I. 2. Implied Authority — a. General Rule. — See notes 4, 5. Addition of words making => note payable in stock is material. Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 443. 241. 1. Delaying Time of Payment. — Avir- ett v. Barnhart, 86 Md. 545 ; Sawyer v. Camp- bell, 107 Iowa 397 ; Ft. Worth First Nat. Bank v. Payne, (Ky. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 736; Cambria Iron Co. v. Keynes, 56 Ohio St. 501, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 240 ; Bowers v. Rineard, 209 Pa. St. 545. See also Phoenix Ins. Co. v. McKernan, 100 Ky. 97- 2. Accelerating Time of Payment. — Seebold v. Tatlie, 76 Minn. 131. 4. Alteration in Place of Payment — General Bule. — Holmes v. Ft. Gaines Bank, 120 Ala. 493; Carroll v. Warren, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 687; Pelton v. San Jacinto Lumber Co., 113 Cal. 21 ; Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130 ; Pope v. Branch County Sav. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210; Sheley v. Sampson, 5 Kan. App. 465 ; In re Day, 13 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 133. 242. 4. Change in Statement of Consideration. — Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513. 6. Alteration in Description of Mortgaged Prop- erty. — Kime v. Jesse, 52 Neb. 606. Alteration in Range Number will avoid the in- strument. Kalbach v. Mathis, 104 Mo. App. 300. 243. 1. Alteration in Deed of Quantity of Land Conveyed. — Powell v. Pearlstine, 43 S. Car. 403. The Intentional Addition of Property by Mort- gagee in Chattel Mortgage renders the instru- ment void. Bedgood-Howell Co. v. Moore, (Ga. '905) Si S. E. Rep. 420. Erasure of Letter " s " from Words " Walls and Buildings " Material. — Webster Realty Co. v. Thomas, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T. 1905) 94 N. Y. Supp. 916. 2. Identity Not Changed, — Chicago Title, etc., Co. v . O'Marr, 18 Mont. 568 ; Gunter v. Addy, 58 S. Car. 178; Churchill v. Bielstein, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 445. Compare McKinney v. Cabell, 24 Ind. App. 676, 31 Ind. App. 548. 244. 2. Change in Negotiability — Insertion of Words "or Order."— See Carlile v. Lamb, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 70. 4. Inserting Place of Payment, — Carroll v. Warren, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 687. 245. 1. An Attempt to Insert "or Order" does not amount to a material alteration of a non-negotiable instrument where the insertion is in the wrong place and is spelled " or oder." Carlile v. Lamb, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 70. 4. Substitution of Words " or Bearer " for " or Order." — Burch v. Daniel, 101 Ga. 228; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334; Sawyers. Campbell, 107 Iowa 397; Marshall v. Wilhite, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 500. 6. Adding Signature of WitneBB. — White Sew- ing Mach. Co. v. Saxon, 121 Ala. 399, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 245. 247. 1. Affixing Seal Where Legal Effect of Instrument Unaltered. — See Carlile v. Lamb, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 70. 251. 4. Execution of and Filling Blanks in Instrument Distinguished. — Martin v. Buff aloe, 121 N. Car. 34. 252. 1. Filling Blanks in Sealed Instruments — Parol Authority Held Sufficient. — Otis v. Browning, 59 Mo. App. 326; Marfin v. Buf- faloe, 121 N. Car. 34; Lafferty v. Lafferty, 42 W. Va. 783. 2. Filling Blanks in Deeds. — Otis. a. Brown- ing, 59 Mo. App. 326. Filling in Name of Grantee. — Lafferty v. Laf- ferty, 42 W. Va. 783- 253. 1. Blanks Filled by Agent Having Parol Authority. — Otis v. Browning, 59 Mo. App. 326. 4. Blanks in Negotiable Paper Filled by Trans- feree. — Howie v. Lewis, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 232. 5. General Bule as to Implied Authority. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52 ; Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246; Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130; Moore v. Hinshaw, 23 Ind. App. 267, 77 Am. St. Rep. 434 ; Pope v. Branch County Sav. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210 ; Herington Bank v. Wangerin, 65 Kan. 423 ; Roe v. Town Mut. F. Ins. Co., 78 Mo. App. 452 ; Humphrey Hard- ware Co. v. Herrick, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 1016; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551 ; Farmers, etc., Nat. Bank v, Novich, 89 Tex, 381. 276 Vol. II. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. 254 260 254. b. Basis of Rule. — See note i. c. Application of Rule — (3) Sealed Instruments — (b) Where Sufficiency of Parol Authority la Sustained. — See note 9. 255. d. Extent of Implied Authority — (i) Insertion of Matter Necessary to Complete Instrument: — See note 1. Filling in Date. — See note 2. 256. Filling in Interest. — See note I . Filling In Place of Payment. — See note 5- Filling in Name of Party. — See note 6. 257. note 2. note 3. (2) Insertion of Repugnant Stipulations. — See note 1. ,(3) Addition of Stipulations Not Provided for by Blanks. — See (4) Erasure or Alteration of Written or Printed Words. — See 3. Effect of Unauthorized Filling of Blanks — a. As Between Origi- nal Parties. — See note 4. 258. b. As to Third Persons — (i) With Knowledge.— See note 1. (2) Bona Fide Purchasers of Negotiable Instruments. — See note 2. 259. (3) Filling Blanks in Specialties — Estoppel. — See note 1. VI. Ratification of Alterations — 1. General Rule. — See notes 4.5- 2. What Constitutes Ratification — a. Sealed Instruments — Suffl- oienoy of Parol Consent Denied. — See note 7. 260. Parol Consent Held Sufficient. — See note 2. b. Negotiable Instruments. — See note 3. Ratification Need Not Be Express or in Writing. — See note 5. 254. 1. Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. 9. Right Implied from All Circumstances. — Spring Garden Ins. Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa 691, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 254. 255. 1. Extent of Implied Authority — Gen- eral Rule. — See Herington Bank v. Wangerin, 65 Kan. 423; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. 2. Filling in Date. — Lance v. Calvert, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 102. 256. 1. Filling in Rate of Interest. — Farm- ers, etc., Nat. Bank v. Novich, 89 Tex. 381. 6. Filling in Place of Payment. — Cox v. Alex- ander, 30 Oregon 438. Compare Light v. Kil- linger, 16 Ind. App. 102, 59 Am. St. Rep. 313. 6. Blank Left for Name of Payee. — Cox v. Alex- ander, 30 Oregon 438. 257. 1. Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. 2. Insertion of Additional Stipulations. — Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551 ; Cox v. Alex- ander, 30 Oregon 438. See also Light v. Kil- linger, 16 Ind. App. 102, 59 Am. St. Rep. 313. 3. Erasing or Altering Written or Printed Words. — Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D'. C.) 1 ; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551 ; Cox v. Alexander, 30 Oregon 438. 4. Unauthorized Filling of Blanks — Effect upon Original Parties. — Pope v. Branch County Sav. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210. 258. 1. Unauthorized Filling of Blanks — As to Third Parties with Knowledge. — Pope v. Branch County Say. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210; Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130. 2. Unauthorized Filling of Blanks — Bona Fide Purchasers. — Prim v. fiammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; Statton v. Stone, 15 Colo. App. 237; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 8s Am. St. Rep. 246 ; Weaver v. Leseure, 89 111. App. 628 ; Pope v. Branch County Sav. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210; Hackett v. Louisville First Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 193; Weidman v. Symes, 120 Mich. 657, 77 Am: St. Rep. 603 ; Humphrey Hardware Co. v. Herrick, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 1016; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. See also Derr v. Keaough, 96 Iowa 397: 259. 1. Filling Blanks in Specialties. — Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422. 4. Material Alteration May Be Ratified. — Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc., R. Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 371 ; Cabell v. McKinney, 31 Ind. App. 548 ; Mockler v. St. Vincent's Inst., 87 Mo. App. 473; State v. Paxton, 65 Neb. no; Bryant v. Charleston Bank, 107 Tenn. 560 ; Janes v. Ferd Heim Brewing Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 44 S. W. Rep. 896; Chezum v. McBride, 21 Wash. 558 ; Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452. See also Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. Rep. 191. 6. New Consideration Not Necessary. — State u. Paxton, 65 Neb. no. 7. Ratification of Alteration in Bond. — Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. Car. 193. 260. 2. Consent by Parol to Alteration of Specialty Held Sufficient. — See Coney v. Laird, 153 Mo. 408. 3. Parol Consent of Party. — Lance v. Calvert, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 102. 5. Failing to Object to Alteration. — Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Oregon 64. Accepting profits under an altered lease with knowledge of the alteration is a waiver of the right to thereafter object. See Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. Rep. igi. 277 961 271 ALTERA TION OF INSTRUMENTS. Vol. il. 261 . Intent to Batify and Knowledge of Alteration Essential. — See notes I, 2. Illustrations. —^ See notes 3, 5- „ . „ ,-;,■* 263. VIII. Effect of Restoration — Bestoration win Not Bevive validity, =- See 266 ''iX Altebations in Wills -^ 2. Alterations by the Testator -b. Effect' of Alteration After Execution — Alteration in ciau.es. — bee note 3. 267. 3. Alterations by a Legatee. *- bee note 3. 268. 4. Alterations by a Stranger. — See note 1. X. Recoveby of Money Paid on Altebed Instbuwent. — bee XII. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT — Fact of Alteration. — See Where Alteration Is Presumed from Appearance of Instrument. — See noteg 2, 3, Materiality of Alterations. — See note 4. Consent. — See note 5. 270. intent. — See note 1.. XIII. Evidence — 1. Competency and Sufficiency of Evidence — a. Competency of Evidence — in General. — See note 3, 27 1 . Corroborating Circumstances. ■■ — See note I . Expert Testimony. — See note 2. note 4. 269 261. 1. Knowledge of Alteration Necessary. — State v. t Paxton, 65 Neb. no. Contra. — See Harrison v. Luce, 64 Ark. 583. 2. Intent to Batify Necessary. — State v. Past- ton, 65 Neb. no. 3. Promise to Pay Note. — Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452. See Mulkey v. Long, 5 Idaho 213. S. Partial Payment of Note. — Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 261. 263. 1. Bestoration of Altered Instrument. — Hayes v. Wagner, 89 111. App. 390 ; McMurtrey v. Sparks, 71 Mo. App. 126; McAlpin v. Clark, S Ohio Cir. Pec. 364; Edwards v. Sartor, 69 S. Car. S40 ; Deering Harvester Co. v. White, no Tenn. 132; Connors. Thornton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W- Rep. 354- See also Phoenix Ins. Co. v, McKernan, 100 Ky. 97. 266. 3. Alteration in Legacies. — Thomas v. Thomas, 76 Minn. 237, 77 Am, St. Rep. 639. 267. 3. Alterations by Legatee. — Thomas w. Thomas, 76 Minn. 237, 77 Am. St. Rep. 639. 26§. \. Alterations by Stranger. — Thomas v. Thomas, 76 Minn, 237, 77 Am. St. Rep. 639. 2. Money Paid on a Raised Check may be re- covered, provided the one seeking to recover has not, by his careless or negligent act, injured or prejudiced the rights of the person from whom the recovery is sought. Oppenhejm v. West Side Bank, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N, y.) 7??. 4. Georgia. — Heard v, Tappan, 116 Ga, 930 i Armstrong v, Penn, 105 Ga, 229 ; Winkles V. Guenther, 98 Ga. 472. Iowa. — Benton County Sav. Bank v. Strand, 106 Iowa 606. Missouri. — McMurtrey v. Sparks, 71 Mo. App. 126; Paul v. Leeper, Q g Mo. App. 515, Nebraska. — Dorsey v. Conrad, 49 Neb. 443 i Ge-odin v. Plugge, 47 Neb. 284; McClintock v. State Bank, 52 Neb. 130. New Jersey. — Jones v. Crowley, 57 N. J. L- 322. New York. — Mosher v. Davis, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 622. North Dakota. — Cass County v. American Exch. State Bank, 9 N- Dak. 263. Oklahoma. — Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513- South Carolina. — White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 269. 2. Ofenstein v. Bryan, 2p App. Cas. .(D. C.) 1. 3, Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 APP- Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Weidman v. Symes, 120 Mich. 657, 77 Am. St. Rep. 603. 4. Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (?d ed.) 269; Winkles v.. Guenther, 98 Ga, 4?2 ; McMurtrey v. Sparks, 71 Mo. App. 126; Jones v. Crowley, 57 N. J. L. 222 ; Richardson 11. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513- §, White v- Harris, 69 S. Car. 65. 270. 1. Ofenstein -v. Bryan, 2p App. Gas. (D. C.) x. 3. See Gandy v. Bissell, (Neb. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 803 ; Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Oregon 64. L Illustrations. — It is competent to ask the plaintiff whether his attention was in any man- ner drawn to these changes in the note. Stpugh v. Og contradict the payee who testifies that ttte in- terlined origjnaj note was drawn in his usual manner of drawing notes, Hellriege} v. Gprson, 24 N. Y, App. Div. 452. 2. Opinion of Expert Competent Evidence, — Ofenstein V . Bryan, 20 App. Cas, (P, Q-) 1 > Rass v. Sebastian, igp 111, 602; Coppock v. Lampkin, 114 Iowa 664, 278 Vol. II. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. 372-275 272. b. Sufficiency of Evidence. — See note i. 2. Burden of Proof — a. NonapparEnt Alterations. — See notes 3, 5. b. Apparent Alterations — Presumptions — (1) Generally — Conflict of Authorities. — See note 6. 273. (2) Preliminary Inquiry by Court. — See note 2. 274. Question Should Generally Be Submitted to Jury. — » See note I . (3) View that Apparent Alteration Raises No Presumption. -—See note 2. 275. Duty of Explanation Devolves on Him Who Produces Instrument. — - See note 3. Proof of Signature Generally Makes Prima Facie Case. — See note I. Rebuttal of Prima Facie Case. — See note 2, Evidence in Rebuttal — The Writing as Evidence. — See note 3. Where the Alteration Is in Itself Suspicious. — - See note 4. Absence of Explanation Considered as Evidence. — See note §. (4) View that Alteration Presumed Made Before Execution. — See notes 7, 8. 272. 1. See Rosenberg v. Jett, 72 Fed. Rep. 90. An Affidavit by Defendant that the note sued on was altered must show when and by whom altered, what was changed, and the original tenor of the altered note. Bryan v. Harr, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 190. 3. Conkling v. Olmstead, 63 111. App. 649. 5. Nonapparent Alterations — Burden of Proof. — Dewey v. Merritt, 106 111. App. 156; Jack- son v. Day, 80 Miss. 800 ; Hodge v . Scott, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 837; McClintock v. State Bank, 52 Neb. 130; Gettysburg Nat. Bank w. Gage, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 50s ; Cosgrove v. Fane- bust, 10 S. Dak. 213; Bradley v. Dells Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 245. Immaterial Alteration. — Where the alteration is absolutely immaterial, so far as the parties are concerned, the burden of proof is on the party alleging the invalidity of the instrument. Parker's Estate, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 606. 6. Wheadon v. Turregano, 112 La. 931. For a review of authorities and a discussion- of this proposition see Dorsey v. Conrad, 49 Neb. 443. 27*. 2. Ward v. Cheney, 117 Ala. 238, citing 2 Am, and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ad ed.) 273;, State v. Chick, 146 Mo. 645; Brad- ley v. Dells Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 245. See also Stough v. Ogden, 49 Neb. 291. Testimony that Alteration Was Made Before De- livery to Plaintiff, — Consumers Ice Co. v. Jen- nings,, 100 Va, 719,, supporting fifth paragraph in original note. S74. 1. Graham v. Middleby, 185 Mass. 349; McClintock t). State Bank, 52 Neb. 130. 2. Question of Fact for Jury. — Ward v. Cheney, 117 Ala. 241; Hart v. Sharpton, 124 Ala. 638; Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 144, 86 Aim* St. Rep; 183, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 274; Catlin Coal Co; v. Lloyd, 180 Hi. 3.98* 72 Am. St. Rep. 216, citing 2 Am. and Eng, Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 274; States'. Chick, 146 Mo. 64s; Goodin * Pliigge, 47 Neb. 284 ; Stough v. Ogden, 49 Neb. 291 ; Winters v. Mowrer, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 47/;; Meddle v. Breiland, 9 S. Dak. 506; Kansas Mut, L. Ins. Co. v. Coalson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 64; Consumers Ice Go! v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719. See also Winkles v. Guerither, 98 Ga. 472; Harper v. Reaves, 132 Ala. 625. 3. Plaintiff Must Make Out His Case. — In re Howgate, (.1902) 1 Ch. 451, 71 L. J. Ch. 279; Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 144, 86 Am. St. Rep. 183, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 274; Baxter v. Camp-, 71 Conn. 245', 7 1 Am. St. Rep. 169; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422 ; State v. Chick, 146 Mo. 645 ; Gowdey v. Robbins, 3. N. Y. App. Div. 353 ; Marshall v. Wilhite, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 500 ; Alexander v. Buckwalter, 8 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 74; Gettysburg Nat.- Bank v. Gage, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 505 ; Davis v. Crawford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 384; Kansas Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Coalson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 64 ; Consumers Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va.' 719. 275. 1. Proof of Execution Enough in First Instance. — Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69- Ark. 144, 86 Am. St. Rep; 183 ; Dewey v. Mer- ritt, ro6 111. App. 156; Fudge v. Marqaiell, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 565 ; Graham i). Mid- dleby, 185 Mass. 349; Richardson- v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513; Cosgrove v. Fanebust,, 10 S. Dak. 213; Moddie v. Breiland, 9 S. Dak. 506; Mal- daner v. Smith, 102 Wis. 30. 2. Fudge v. Marquell, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. S65; Graham v. Middleby, 185. Mass. 349. 3. The Instrument Itself as Evidence. — Cass County v. American Exch. State Bank, 9 N. Dak. 263 ; Foley-Wadsworth Implement Co. v'. Solomon, 9 S. Dak. 511. See also Cosgrove v. Fanebust, ro S. Dak. 213. 4. Yeager v.- Cassidy, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 305^ Kansas Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Coalson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 64. What Constitutes "Suspicious Circumstances." ■ — Landt v. McCullough, 206 111. 214. 5. See Peugh ■V. Mitchell, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 321. 7. Burgess v. Blake, 128 Ala. 105, 86 Am. St. Rep. 78 ; Guhkel *. Seiberth, (Ky. 1905) 85. S. W. Rep. 733. 8. United States. — SnSed v. Sabihal Min., etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 73 Fed. Rep. 925. Alabama. — Ward v. Cheney, 117 Ala. 24 r. Missouri. — ■ Noah v. German Ins. Co., 69 Mo. App. 332; Paul v. Leeper, 98 Mo. App. 515; Kalbach v. Mathis, 104 Mo. Appl 300. *?9 276-286 ALTERA TION, E TC. - AMALGAM A TE. Vol. II. 276. 277. note i. Subsidiary Principle as to Suspicious Alteration. — See note 2. (5) View that Alteration Presumed Made After Execution. — See Presumption Denied, Limited, or Explained. — See notes 3, 4. 278. Where the Alteration Is Against Interest, or Not Suspicious. — See note 2. (6) Suspicious Circumstances Calling for Explanations — Instances of Suspicious Alterations. — See note 3. 279. See note 1. 280. c. Proof of Facts Avoiding Effect of Alteration — General Buie. — See note 4. 286. AMALGAMATE — AMALGAMATION. — See note 1. Nebraska. — Dorsey v. Conrad, 49 Neb. 443. North Dakota. — Cass County v. ' American Exch. State Bank, 9 N. Dak. 263 ; Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Laughlin, 4 N. Dak. 391. Ohio. — Newman v. King, 54 Ohio St. 273, 56 Am. St. Rep. 705 ; Tarbill v. Richmond City Mill Works, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 643. Oregon. — See Galloway v. Bartholomew, 44 Oregon 75. South Dakota. — Moddie v. Breiland, 9 S. Dak. 506 ; Foley-Wadsworth Implement Co. v. Solomon, 9 S. Dak. 511. Texas. — Parshall v. Clark, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 437. Washington. — Blewett v. Bash, 22 Wash. 536. Wisconsin. — Bradley v. Dells Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 245; Maldaner v. Smith, 102 Wis. 30. " Alterations are prima facie presumed to have been made before execution, unless the paper be denied on oath." Winkles v. Guen- ther, 98 Ga. 472. Alteration in Same Ink. — Peugh v. Mitchell, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 321. See also Cook v. Moulton, 59 111. App. 428. 276. 2. Where the Alteration Is Suspicious — Alabama. — See Burgess v. Blake, 128 Ala. 105, 86 Am. St. Rep. 78 ; Ward v. Cheney, 1 1 7 Ala. 238. Illinois. — See Landt v. McCullough, 103 111. App. 668. Iowa. — Rambousek v. Supreme Council, etc., 119 Iowa 263. Louisiana. — Messi u. Frechede, 113 La. 679; Wheadon v. Turregano, 112 La. 931. Missouri. — Burton v. American Guarantee Fund F. Ins. Co., 88 Mo. App. 392 ; Noah u. German Ins. Co., 69 Mo. App. 332; Kalbach u. Mathis, 104 Mo. App. 300. See also Burton u. American Guarantee Fund Mut. F. Ins. Co., 96 Mo. App. 204. New York. — Rosenbloom v. Finch, ( Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 818. Pennsylvania. — Citizens Nat. Bank v. Wil- liams, 174 Pa. St. 66. South Dakota. — Landauer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205. Tennessee. — Riseden v. Harrison, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 884. Virginia. — Bashaw v. Wallace, 101 Va. 733. Wisconsin. — Bradley v. Dells Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 245; Maldaner v. Smith, io2_Wis. 30. 277. 1. Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. Rep. 191, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 276; Dewey v. Merritt, 106 111. App. 156. See Holmes v. Ft. Gaines Bank, 120 Ala. 493; Wheadon v. Turregano, 112 La. 931; Messi v. Frechede, 113 La. 679. Statute in Idaho. — Where the alteration is apparent, the party producing the instrument must explain it. Mulkey v. Long, 5 Idaho 213. 3. Presumption Against Validity of Instrument Denied. — See Parker's Estate, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 606 ; Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8. 4. Rule Confined to Commercial Paper. — See Winters v. Mowrer, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 47. 278. 2. See Bowers v. Rineard, 209 Pa. St. 545- 3. Alterations in Favor of Propounder. — Land- auer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 278 ; Burton v. American Guarantee Fund Mut. F. Ins. Co., 88 Mo. App. 392. 279. 1. Peugh v. Mitchell, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 321; Bashaw v. Wallace, 101 Va. 733; Bradley v. Dells Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 243. Instrument Cut. — Where the instrument shows that a part of it has been clipped or cut away by a sharp instrument, it is suspicious on its face and the burden of proof is shifted. Burton v. American Guarantee Fund Mut F. Ins. Co., 88 Mo. App. 392. 280. 4. Sullivan v. California Realty Co., 142 Cal. 201 ; Maguire v. Eichmeier, 109 Iowa 301 ; Wheadon v. Turregano, 112 La. 931 ; Citi- zens Nat. Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66. In Idaho such evidence is especially set out by statute. Mulkey v. Long, 5 Idaho 213. 286. 1. "Amalgamation "in England Equiva- lent to " Consolidation " in United States. — Shad- ford v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 130 Mich. 300. Amalgamation and Reconstruction. • — In re South Africa Supply, etc., Co., (1904) 2 Ch. 287, the court said : " The only question I have to determine is whether, in the case of each of these two companies, there has or has not been a winding-up ' for the purpose of re- construction or amalgamation.' Neither of these words, ' reconstruction ' and amalgama- tion, has any definite legal meaning. Each is a commercial and not a legal term, and, even as a commercial term, bears no exact definite meaning. In each case one has to decide whether the transaction is such as that, in the meaning of commercial men, it is one which is comprehended in the term ' reconstruction ' or amalgamation. * * * An amalgamation involves, I think, a different idea. There you must have the rolling, somehow or other, of two concerns into one. You must weld two things together and arrive at an amalgam — a blending of two undertakings." s8o AMBIGUITY. By W. H. Buchanan. 289. II. Kinds of Ambiguity — 2. Latent Ambiguity. — See note i. A Question of Fact. — ■ See note 2. 3. Ambiguity of Intermediate Class. — See note 3. III. Parol Evidence to Explain — 1. Patent Ambiguity — General Eule. — See note 4. 289. 1. Latent Ambiguity Denned. — Flynn v. Holman, 119 Iowa 731; Ladnier v. Ladnier, 75 Miss. 777; Petrie v. Hamilton College, 158 N. Y. 458. Latent Ambiguity Distinguished from Mistake or Error in Description. — A latent ambiguity may be explained and the description aided by parol evidence in a court of law, while a mistake or error in description requires the jurisdiction of a court of equity for its correction. Done- hoo v. Johnson, 120 Ala. 438. The Term " The Southeast Forty of the North- east Quarter" does not create a latent ambigu- ity where the common acceptance and meaning of such term is " the southeast forty acres of the northeast quarter." Evans v. Gerry, 174 111. 595- 2. Latent Ambiguity — Question of Fact. — Davenport First Nat. Bank v. Rothschild, 107 111. App. 133. When Question of Law. — In Thorn, etc., Lime, etc., Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fire Proofing Co., 77 Mo. App. 21, the court said : " Where an ambiguity exists and it is solved by extraneous matter about which there is no dispute, the construction is * * * for the court. But where the extrinsic facts are unconceded and rest upon conflicting testi- mony from which different inferences might be drawn, it is for the triers of the facts to draw the inferences and say what the parties meant by the contract." 8. Ambiguity of Intermediate Class. — Moody v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 124 Ala. 195 ; Miles v. Miles, 78 Miss. 904, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encvc. of Law (2d ed.) 289; Sullivan v. Vis- conti, 68 N. J. L. 543, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 287, 304; Dorris v. King, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 683. See also Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 55 Am. St. Rep. 527 ; Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael, 80 Miss. 66. The Omission of the Number of a Lot intended to be described in a lease does not effect a patent ambiguity, within the accurate and proper definition of that term, but is such as may be corrected by parol proof. Marske v. Willard, 169 111. 276. Omission from a Deed of the Names of the State and County, when the land is described by sec- tion, township, and range, may be corrected by proof of extrinsic facts applying the deed to the property sought to be conveyed. Ladnier v. Ladnier, 75 Miss. 777. " Cost in Market " has no fixed meaning and may be explained by parol evidence of the meaning given to it by the parties at the time of the execution of the contract. McGrath v. Crouse, 6 Kan. App. 507. The Term " Strand " is of universal use, and therefore does not come within the rule of ad- missibility of parol evidence to prove how it was understood or accepted in any particular locality. Stillman v. Burfeind, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 13. The Term "Westerly Half" of a store when used in a lease may be explained by parol evi- dence in a case where the application of the middle line of the store fails definitely to create the part intended to be leased. Freund v. Kearney, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 685. An Imperfect Description of Notes secured by a trust deed, which is simply inaccurate in fail- ing to add some additional matter, which would have made the description perfect, may be aided by extrinsic evidence. McDonald v. Dorbrandt, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 277. 4. Effect of Patent Ambiguity — England. — In re Hetley, (1902) 2 Ch. 866, 87 L. T. N. S. 265; In re Fleetwood, 15 Ch. D. 594. See also Flood v. Flood, (1902) 1 Ir. R. 538. Alabama. — Hereford v. Hereford, 131 Ala. 573- Indiana. — Compare Holt v. Sweetzer, 23 Ind. App. 237. Iowa. — Augustine v. McDowell, 120 Iowa 401. Kentucky. — Hall v. Conlee, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 899 ; Smith v. Smith, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 766. See also Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Lawrence, 106 Ky. 88; Thomas v. Scott, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 1 1 29. Maryland. — Castleman v. Du Val, 89 Md. 657- Missouri. — Mudd v. Dillon, 166 Mo. no; C. E. Donnell Newspaper Co. v. Jung, 81 Mo. App. 577- New Jersey. — Compare Simanton v. Vliet, 61 N. J. L. 595. North Carolina. — Holman v. Whitaker, 119 N. Car. 113. See also Worth v. Simmons, 121 N. Car. 358. Oklahoma. — See Powers v. Rude, (Okla. 1904) 79 Pac. Rep. 89. Oregon. — Tallmadge v. Hooper, 37 Oregon 503- Texas. — Cammack v. Prather, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903') 74 S. W. Rep. 354. In Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 55 Am. St. Rep. 527, the court said: "When the 281 391-392 AMBIGUITY. Vol. II. 391. Season of the Eule. — See note I. Qualification of the Bule. — See note 2. 393. See note i. parol evidence is for the purpose of adding a material term to an instrument, or when the court, having looked to the circumstances of the parties, the subject-matter of the instrument, and all proper collateral facts, remains uncer- tain as to what the meaning of the written words is, a patent ambiguity appears, which parol evidence cannot aid." Omission of the Name of the Town in which is situated property intended to be described in a deed, produces a patent ambiguity, and parol evidence is not admissible to remedy the un- certainty in the description. Taffinder v. Mer- rell, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 66i. The Word " Well " may not of itself convey » distinct idea of the precise thing the parties in- tended should be produced, but as the doubt is suggested at once by the phrase itself, it has been held that it is an ambiguity which the law terms a " patent ambiguity," and as a general rule such a one may not be cured by proof of what the parties intended by the use of the doubtful phrase. Strong v. Waters, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 299. 891. 1. Strong v. Waters, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 299, quoting 21 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 289, 290. 2. Evidence of Intention. — Borden v. Fletcher, ijr Mich. 220, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 291. Under Georgia Code. — Chauncey v. Brown, 99 Ga. 766. 292. 1. Proof of Collateral Facts and Sur- rounding Circumstances — England. — New Zea- land Bank v. Simpson, (1900) A. C. 182, 8'z L. T. N. S. 102; In re Grainger, (1900) z Ch. 756, 83 L. T. N. S. 209. California. — Baker v. Clark, 128 Cal. 181; Matter of Langdon, 129 Cal. 451. Connecticut. — Fritsche v. Fritsche, 75 Conn. 285. Florida. — L'Engle v. Scottish Union, etc., F. Ins. Co., (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 462. Georgia. — Fenn Tobacco Co. v. Leman, 109 Ga. 428; Follendore v. Follendbre, no Ga. 359. Illinois. — Chambers v. Prewitt, 172 111. 615; Davenport First Nat. Bank v. Rothschild, 107 III. App. 133; Sanitary Dist. v. McMahon, etc., Co., no 111. App. 510. See also Keeley Brew- ing Co. v. Neubauer Decorating Co., 194 111. 580 ; Davis v. Fidelity F. Ins. Co., 208 111. 375. Iowa. — American Sav. Bank v.. Shaver Car- riage Co., in Iowa 137; Ingram v. Dailey, 123 Iowa 188. Kansas. — Peters v. McVey, 59 Kan. 775, 52 Pac. Rep. 896. Kentucky. — Chapman v. Clements, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 646. Maryland. — See Castleman. v. Du Val, 89 M'd. 657. Massachusetts. — Hebb v. Welsh, 185 Mass. 335- Michigan. — Borden v. Fletcher, 131 Mich. 220, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 291. Minnesota. — Ripon College v. Brown, 66 Minn. 179; Reeves v. Cress, 80 Minn. 466. Missouri. — Arnoldia v. Childs, 70 Mo. App. 530. New York. — Myers v. Sea Beach R. Co., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 573 ; Bird v. Beckwith, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 124; New York House .Wrecking Co. v. O'Rourke, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 217; Tanenbaum v. Levy, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 319, affirmed 178 N. Y. 594; Bowery Bank v. Hart, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 412. See also Southampton v. Jessup, 173 N. Y. 84. North Carolina. — Ward v. Gay, (N. Car. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 884. Oregon. — Baker County v. Huntington, (Oregon 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 187. Pennsylvania. — Cummins v. German Ameri- can Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 61. Texas. — ■ Ascarete v. Pfaff, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 974; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 781. West Virginia. — • Newman v. Kay, (W. Va. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 926. Wisconsin. — Murray Hill Land Co. v. Mil- waukee Light, etc., Co., no Wis. 555; Excel- sior Wrapper Co. v. Messinger, 116 Wis. 549. In Marske v. Willard, 169 111. 276, the court said : " Some confusion exists in the authori- ties, arising, it is believed, out of incorrect meanings attached to- the terms ' latent ' and ' patent ' ambiguities, for it is certainly not true that, as the term ' patent ambiguity ' is often understood, it is an inflexible rule that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to explain the ambiguity." In Citizens' Bank v. Brigham, 61 Kan. 727, the court said : " Where the phraseology of an instrument is doubtful or ambiguous, mean- ing can be given to it by showing the inducing causes to the making of it and the facts and circumstances surrounding its execution and involving the parties to it; and generally, evi- dence not contradictory of the language of an instrument, but explanatory of the purpose and object of the parties in executing it, will be received." In Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 55 Am. St. Rep. 527, the court said: "The rule against the introduction of parol testimony in cases of patent ambiguity is very generally stated too broadly — frequently for the reason that, with reference to the case before the court, the rule, however broadly stated, is cor- rect in its application." In Wolff v. Wells, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 32, the court said : " If there is any uncer- tainty or ambiguity as to the meaning of the words used in the written contract, where it is based upon or refers to a conversation, parol evidence may be admitted, not to vary the terms of the contract, but to explain the sense in which the language in the writing was used". Such attendant and surrounding circumstances are competent evidence for the purpose of placing the court in the same situation and giving it the same advantage for construing the instrument as were possessed by the parties who executed it." 282 Vol. It. AMBIGUITY. 29» 395 393. Reputation or Usage, — See note I.. Acts under the Instrument. — - See note 2. 394. Verbal Declarations to Explain Contracts. — See ncate 2. 395. 2. Latent Ambiguity — a. In General. — See note i. In Union Selling Co. v. Jones, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 672, the court said: "That which may b§ so shown, [for the purpose of ascertaining the. meaning of the terms of a con- tract] is frequently spoken of as the surround- ing circumstances, but it does not include the prior representations, proposals, and negotia- tions of a promissory character leading up to, and superseded by, the written agreement." 293. 1. Usage and Custom — Delaware. — Penn Steel Casting, etc., Co. v. Wilmington Mal- leable Iron Co., 1 Penn. (Del.) 337. Georgia, -— Dixon, v. Central of Georgia R. Co,, 1. 10 Ga. 1,73. Illinois. — McChesney v. Chicago, 173, 111. 75; Indiana. — Rastetter v. Reynolds, 160 Ind. 133- Io wq, -™ Wood v. Allen, m Iowa 97; Gras- mier v. Wolf, (Iowa 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 81:3-. See also- Cameron v.. Fellaws, 109 Iowa 334. Kansas. — Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 Kan. 720, affirming 10 Kan. App. \o. Michigan, — See Chase w. Ainswartto, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 404,. Missouri. — Turner v. Dixon, 150. Mo. 416; Heyworth v. Miller Grain, etc., Co., 174 Mo. 171;, Sharp V... Sturgeon, 66 M«h. App. 1.9 1 ; Wilcox v. Baer, 85 Mo. App. 587. Montana. — Cambers v. Lowry, 21 Mont 478. New Jersey. — Halsey v. Adams, 63: N.. J... L. 330. New York. — Woodruff v. Klee, 47 N. Y'. App. Div. 638; Mcintosh v. Miner, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 240. Oregon. — Barnes, v. Leidigh, (Gregoat E905) 79 Pac. Rep. 51. Pennsylvania. — Miller- », McKeesport, etc., R. Co., 179 Pa. St. 350 ; Glenn ti. Strickland, 21. Pa. Super. Ct. 88. Tennessee. — Fry v. Provident Sav. L. Assur. Soc, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 116. Texas. — -Fort Grain Co. v. Hubby, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 363 Vermont. — ■ New England. Granite Works- v. Bailey, 69 Vt. 257. In Hinote v. Brigman, 44. Fla> 589, the court said : " The rule- * *• * is that where words or phrases used in » contract have ac- quired a definite, meaning generally or by local usage, or, when used, in reference to. certain things or o.qmmodjties, have acquired; a defi- nite meaning among those dealing with such things or commodities, and the language used in the writing is such that the courrt does not understand it, oral; testimony is admissible to explain the meaning of such words or phrases." In Kohl v. Frederick, 115 Iowa S l 7, the court said: "Where, by giving a word its strict technical legal meaning, a contract will be- rendered entirely meaningless, it is comr petent tor show by parol the sense in which it was. used, if it is used by laymen in a differ- ent- sense* or- hat a popular or common mean- ing, if by- doing- so the contract may be given foffie. and; effect;" Effect of Parol Evidence.. — Pajx>l evidence of the meaning of technical terms, as established by usage or custom in the trade, neither varies nor adds. to. the written instrument, but merely translates it from the language of the. trade into the ordinary language of people generally. Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257, 65 Am.. St Rep. 568. Warranted Sound and Safe Property. — Where it was contended that this phrase, when used in reference to a horse, had' from long cus>- tom come to be understood in a certain local- ity as referring to the title to the animal ex- clusively, and. not to his qualities, it was held that the word " sound " is a: common wtard the meaning of which could not be varied, but that the term " safe property " could be shown by parol evidence to have been used in a tech- nical sense. Thompson v.. Pruden, 9 Ohio.. Cir. Dec. 857. The Term " Persistent Policy Holder " cannot be explained by extrinsic evidence when the ordinary meaning of the term in the connec- tion in which it occurs is the true one and is sufficiently obvious. Fry v. Provident Sav.- L. Assur. Soc, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S.. W. Rep. 116. 2. Acts of the Parties. — Carroll u. Drury, 170 111. 571, citing z Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 293; Graves v. Broughton, 185 Mass. 174; Borden v. Fletcher, 131 Mich.. 220, citing- z Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 29-3 ;. Smith c;. Sfcacey, 68 N. Y. App-. Div. 5-2.1 ; Pope v. Biggs; (Tex; Civ. App. 18900. 43 S. W. Rep. 306'^ Missouri, etc., R. Co* t), Anderson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904.) 81 S. W. Rep. 78 iij. Newman v. Kay, (W. Va. 19.0 5) 49 S. E. Rep. 926. See also Miles v. Miles, 78 Miss. 904, citmg 2 Ait. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 293 ; Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360, 67 Am. St. Rep; 629. Compare Cast-leman v. Du V'al, 89 Md. 657. 294. 2. Sharp v. Sturgeon, 66 Mo. App. 191 ; S'abin v. Kendrick, 58 N. Y. App. Diw: 108 ; Smith v. Stacey, 68 N. Y. App. Div.. 521 ; Easton Power Co. v. Sterlingworjth. R. Supply Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 538. See also Vandiwer s. Vandiver, 115 Ala. 328, citmg 2 Am. anjs Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 294 ; Bird v. Beckwith, 45 N.. Y. App. Div. 124, citing- 2 Am. and. Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 294. 295 . 1 . Rule as to latent Ambiguities — Aba* bama. — Donehoo v. Johnson, 120 Ala. 438'.; Stamphill v. Bullen, 121 Ala. 230. Arkansas. — Wolff v. Elliott, 68 Ark; $261 Illinois. — O'Connell v. Lamb, 63 111. App; 653. Indiana. — Thomas v. Troxel, 26 Ind". App. 322. Kentucky,. — Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Lawrence, 106 Ky. 88; Craft v. Bates, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 436. S.«e also Smith, v. Smith, (Ky. 1903) 72. S. W. Rep. 766. Mississippi. — Ladnier v. Ladnier, 75 Miss. 777- Montana. — Carman, v. Staudaker, 20 Monk 364- 283 396-300 AMBIGUITY. Vol. II. 396. 297. 298. 299. 300. or Thing. - b. Wills. — See note 2. See notes i, 2, 3. How the Ambiguity May Be Bemoved. — See note t. In the Case of a Misdescription. — See note 2. c. CONVEYANCES — Where the Description May Apply to More than One Person See note i. Nebraska. — Fidelity Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 702. New Jersey. — Axford v. Meeks, 59 N. J. L. 502. New York. — Petrie v. Hamilton College, 158 N. Y. 458, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 295; McKee v. De Witt, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 617. Pennsylvania. ■ — Sheaffer v. Sensenig, 182 Pa. St. 634. Texas. — Robbins v. Ginnochio, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 34- Virginia. — Richardson v. Planters Bank, 94 Va. 130. Washington. — Pennsylvania Mortg. Invest. Co. v. Sirams, 16 Wash. 243 ; Reformed Presb. Church v. McMillan, 31 Wash. 643. In Sulphur Mines Co. v. Thompson, 93 Va. 293, the court said: "No court is at liberty to pronounce an instrument ambiguous or un- certain until it has brought to and in its interpretation all the lights afforded by col- lateral facts and circumstances which are properly provable by parol." In Harmon v. Thompson, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 569, the court said : " Where, after applying the rules of interpretation applicable to the writing alone, the judicial mind is still in doubt as to the meaning of the parties, and there exists a latent ambiguity, the law admits parol or other outside evidence to explain what was meant by the writing." The Minutes of a Corporation may be explained by parol evidence, John C. Grafflin Co. v. Woodside, 87 Md. 146. A Notice of the Levy of Attachment which con- tains a defective description of the property cannot be helped out by parol evidence. Hailey First Nat. Bank v. Sonnelitner, 6 Idaho 21. Not All Latent Ambiguities May Be Explained by Parol. — See dicta in Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 55 Am. St. Rep. 527. 296. 2. Two Persons Answering the Descrip- tion. — Pawnee City Second United Presb. Church v. Pawnee City First United Presb. Church, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 252. See also Wheaton v. Pope, 91 Minn. 299. " My Nephew," when used in a will to de- scribe a beneficiary, refers to the nephew of the testator, and the fact that the testator's wife has a nephew of the same name does not create an ambiguity. Root's Estate, 187 Pa. St. 118. 297. 1. Two Things Answering the Descrip- tion. — See Borden v. Fletcher, 131 Mich. 220, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 297, 298. See also Wheaton v. Pope, 91 Minn. 299. 2. Misdescription of Object. — Vandiver v. Van- diver, us Ala. 328. See also Schlottman v. Hoffman, 73 Miss. 188, 55 Am. St. Rep. 527. 8. Misdescription of Subject. — Gordon v. Bur- ns, 141 Mo. 602. See also Wheaton v. Pope, 91 Minn. 299. Erroneous Description of Previous Will. — Where a previous will referred to as having been made on a certain day was in fact made at an earlier date, a latent ambiguity arises and parol evidence is admissible in explanation thereof. Whiteman v. Whiteman, 152 Ind. 263. 298. 1. Two Persons or Things Within the Description — How the Ambiguity Removed — Connecticut. — See Thompson v. Betts, 74 Conn. 576, 92 Am. St. Rep. 235. Illinois. — Missionary Soc. v. Cadwell, 69 111. App. 280. See also Vestal v. Garret, 197 111. 398. Indiana. — See Whiteman v. Whiteman, 152 Ind. 263. Iowa. — Flynn v. Holman, 119 Iowa 731; In re Frahm, 120 Iowa 85. Kentucky. — Thomas v. Scott, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 1 1 29. Nebraska. — ■ Pawnee City Second United Presb. Church v. Pawnee City First United Presb. Church, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 252, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 298. New Jersey. — Crosson v. Carr,- 70 N. J. L. 393- North Carolina. — Tilley v. Ellis, 119 N. Car. 233 ; Keith v. Scales, 124 N. Car. 497. Pennsylvania. — Root's Estate, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 217, 6 Pa. Dist. 77. See also Thompson v. Kaufman, 6 Pa. Dist. 522, affirmed 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 305. Texas. — See Lenz v. Sens, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 442. 299. 2. Rule in Case of Misdescription — Alabama. — -Vandiver v. Vandiver, 115 Ala. 328. Michigan. — Cook v. Universalist Gen. Con- vention, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 217. Minnesota. — Wheaton v. Pope, 91 Minn. 299. Missouri. — Gordon u. Burris, 141 Mo. 602. New York. — Klock v. Stevens, (Supm. Ct. Spec: T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 383; Gough v. Davis, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 245, affirmed 39 N. Y. App. Div. 639. Ohio. — McCormick v. Dunker, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 553- Washington. — Reformed, etc., Presb. Church v. McMillan, 31 Wash. 643. West Virginia. — Rose v. Kiger, 42 W. Va. 402. See also Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339. Facts and Circumstances as shown by parol evidence are admissible to show the identity of persons misnamed in a will. Wilson v. Stevens, 59 Kan. 771, 51 Pac. Rep. 903. 300. 1. Description Applicable to More than One Person or Thing. — Stamphill v. Bullen, 121 Ala. 250; Wolff v. Elliott, 68 Ark. 326; Hall v. Conlee, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 899; Tur- ner v. Jackson, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 63 S. W. Rep. 511; Clark v. Regan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1808) 45 S. W. Rep. 169; Newman v. Buzard, 24 Wash. 225. See also Bartlett v. La Rochelle, 68 N. H. 211 ; Dyer v. Cranston Print Works, (R. I. 1893) 41 Atl. Rep. 1014. 284 Vol. II. AMBIGUITY. 301-303 301. Ambiguity as to Consideration. — See note 2. 302. Where There Is a Misdescription. — See notes 2, 3. 303. d. Contracts. — See note i. Sheriff's Deed. — While there are decisions to the effect that resort to extrinsic evidence is not permissible to aid a description in a sheriff's deed, there never have been any solid reasons given why such a distinction should have been recognized. Frazier v. Waco Bldg. Assoc, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 476. See also Ab- bott v. Coates, 62 Neb. 247. 301. 2. Ambiguity in Consideration. — Hen- derson v. Stith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 43 S. W. Rep. 566- 302. 2. Misdescription in Name of Party. — Hicks v. Ivey, 99 Ga. 648. See also McCor- mick v. Dunker, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 553. 3. Misdescription in Location of Property. — Donehoo v. Johnson, 120 Ala. 438; Hereford v. Hereford, 131 Ala. 573; Tumlin v. Perry, 108 Ga. 520; Leverett v. Bullard, 121 Ga. 534; Salmer v. Lathrop, 10 S. Dak. 216; Sloan v. King, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 48. See also Powers v. Rude, (Okla. 1904) 79 Pac. Rep. 89. The Amount of a Grantor's Property at the time he made a conveyance of " all my estate, real and personal," to his sister, may be shown by parol. Graham v. Botner, (Ky. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 583. Words of General Description being used in a deed, parol evidence may be resorted to to locate the premises conveyed. Orvis v. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 187. A Description of Land as "Thirty (30) acres of land, situated in Stony Creek township, adjoining the lands of" A, B, C, and D, may be explained by parol evidence. Wilkins v. Jones, 119 N. Car. 95. The Location of a Corner Called for in a Grant may be shown by parol evidence. The " doc- trine of allowing the use of parol evidence and the proof of marked lines to locate and estab- lish the lines and corners called for in a grant or deed is held in a number of the decisions of this court. Indeed, it is common learning, fully recognized by the courts and the pro- fession. But it is never allowed to contradict and change the calls in a grant or deed." Davidson v. Shuler, 119 N. Car. 582. The Terms of a Deed Being Satisfied by an ex- isting subject-matter, extrinsic evidence to ex- plain the extent of the subject sold will not be admitted. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Phila- delphia, etc., Pass. R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. 269. The Location of Adjoining Lands may be shown by parol so as to apply a deed to its proper subject-matter. Sulphur. Mines Co. v. Thomp- son, 93 Va. 293; No Ambiguity Being Apparent on the Face of the Deed, it has been held that parol evidence is not admissible to show the intention of the parties. Owen v. Henderson, 16 Wash. 39 ; Davis v. Kirksey, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 380. Parol Evidence Is Not Admissible where it tends to vary and contradict the description in the deed. Donehoo v. Johnson, 113 Ala. 126. 303. 1. General Rule as to Contracts — United States. — The Barnstable, 84 Fed. Rep. 895 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Telephone Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 684; Consoli- dated Dental Mfg. Co. v. Holliday, 131 Fed. Rep. 384. Alabama. — Moore -u. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 118 Ala. 563; Moragne v. Richmond Loco- motive, etc., Works, 124 Ala. 537; Alabama Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632. California. — Ontario Deciduous Fruit Grow- ers Assoc, v. Cutting Fruit Packing Co., 134 Cal. 21. Colorado. — Lewis v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 8 Colo. App. 368. See also Hardwick v. Mc- Clurg, 16 Colo. App. 354. Connecticut. — • See Adams v. Turner, 73 Conn. 38. Georgia. — See Carter v. Williamson, 106 Ga. 280. Illinois. — Evans v. Gerry, 174 111. 595; Scott v. Schnadt, 70 111. App. 25. Indiana. — .SDtna Ins. Co. v. Strout, 16 Ind. App. 160 ; Thomas v. Troxel, 26 Ind. App. 322. Iowa. — Wilts v. Mulhallj 102 Iowa 458; Clement v. Drybread, 108 Iowa 701 ; Kelly v. Fejervary, m Iowa 693. Kansas. — Jenkins o. Kirtley, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 671. Kentucky. — Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Lawrence, 106 Ky. 88. Louisiana. — Bagley v. Rose Hill Sugar Co., in La. 249. Maryland. — Morrison v. Baechtold, 93 Md. 3'9- Massachusetts. — Callender, etc., Co. v. Flint, (Mass. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 345. Michigan. — Germain v. Central Lumber Co., 120 Mich. 61 ; Gregory v. Lake Linden, 130 Mich. 368; Borden v. Fletcher, 131 Mich. 220, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 303- Mississippi. — Miles v. Miles, 78 Miss. 904. Missouri. — Newberry v. Durand, 87 Mo. App. 290 ; Laclede Constr. Co. v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 185 Mo. 25. Nebraska. — Modern Woodmen Ace. Assoc. v. Kline, 50 Neb. 345 ; Latenser v. Misner, 56 Neb. 340 ; State v. Cass County, 60 Neb. 566 ; Fidelity Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, (Neb. IQ 03) 95 N. W. Rep. 702. New lersey. — Streeter v. Seigman, (N. J. 1901) 48 Atl. Rep. 907. See also Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 62 N. J. Eq. 656. New York. — Emmett v. Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 564; Vogel v. Weissmann, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 256; Rodger n. Toilettes Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 779; Hart v. Thompson, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 183 ; Garvin Mach. Co. v. Hammond Typewriter Co., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 294, affirmed 159 N. Y. 539 ; La Chicotte v. Richmond R., etc., Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 380; Sabin i). Kendrick, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 108; O'Connor v. Green, 60 N. Y. App. Div. SS3 ; Dady v. O'Rourke, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 303 ; Flagler v, Hearst, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 18. See also Hutchinson v. Root, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 584, affirmed (N. Y. 1899) 52 N. E. Rep. 1124; 285 304-319 AMBIGUITY— ANCESTOR. Vol. II. 304. One or the Other of the Two Things Must Be Intended. — See note I. Likewise, Where There Is a Misdescription. — See note 2. 4. Object of Evidence. — See note 5. 305. AMEND — AMENDMENTS. -See note 5. 307. AMICUS CURIE. — See note 1. AMNESTY. — See note 4. 308. AMONG. — See note 1. 319. AN. —See note 1. ANARCHY. — See note 4. ANCESTOR. — See note 5. United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406; De Reiner, v. Brown, 165 N. Y. 410. Oregon. — Oliver v. Oregon Sugar Co., 42 Oregon 276. Pennsylvania. — Schwab v. Ginkinger, 1 81 Pa. St S; Wright v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co., 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 21*9 ; Glenn v. Strick- land, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 88 ; Easton Power Co. v. Sterlingworth R. Supply Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 53S ; Hunsecker's Estate, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 14, 6 Fa. Dist. 202. Rhode Island. — Phetteplace v. British, etc., Marine Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 26. Texas. — Connecticut F. Ins. Co. v. Hil- brant, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 558. See also Jones v. Hanna, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 550. Utah. — Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah 360, 67 Am. St. Rep. 629. Virginia. — Grubb v. Burford, 98 Va. 553. Washington. — • Pennsylvania Mortg. Invest. Co. v. Simras, 16 Wash. 243. West Virginia. — Uhl v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 106. See also Knowlton v. Camp- bell, 48 W. Va. 294. Wisconsin. — Boden v. Maher, 105 Wis. 539; Wussow v. Hase, 108 Wis. 382; Lippert v. Saginaw Milling' Co., 108 Wis. 512; An- drews v. Robertson, m Wis. 334; Rib River Lumber Co. v. Ogilvie, 113 Wis. 482. 304. 1. The Term "Your lot " in a contract to convey land, has been held too indefinite to allow the admission of parol evidence to ex- plain it where it appeared that the intended grantor had several lots in the same locality. Farthing v. Rochelle, 131 N. Car. 563. 2. Parol Evidence to Identify Parties to Contract. — Hogan v. Wallace, 166 111. 328, reversing 63 111. App. 385 ; Haskell u. Tukesbury, 92 Me. 551, 69 Am. St. Rep. 529; Stokes v. Riley, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 373. 5. United States. — Standard Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Leslie, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 325; Wolff v. Wells, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 32. Alabama. — Donehoo v. Johnson, 120 Ala. 438, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 304. California. — Matter of Young, 123 Cal. 337. 2S6 Iowa. — Flynn v. Holman, 119 Iowa 73*. Massachusetts. — Hebb v. Welsh, 185 Mass. 335- Nebraska. — State v. Cass County, 60 Neb. 566. New York. — Sabin v. Kendrick, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 108. Oregon. — Baker County v. Huntington, (Oregon 1905) 79 Pao. Rep. 187. Pennsylvania. — Gaston's Estate, 188 Pa. St. 374. Texas. — Lenz v. Sens, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 442. West Virginia. — Newman t>. Kay, (W. Va. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 926. 305. 6. Sessions v. State, its Ga. 18, quot- ing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 305. SO 1 ?. 1. See Robinson v. Lee, 122 Fed. Rep. 1011, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 307. 4. Distinguished from Pardon. — State v. Eby, 170 Mo. 497. 308. 1. Wills — Equal Among. — See Holder's Petition, 21 R. I. 49, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed,,) 308. 319. 1. Equivalent to " Any." —Under Code Civ. Pro. Cal., § 581, an action may be dis- missed by the plaintiff at any time before trial, on payment of costs, provided a counterclaim has not been made, or affirmative relief sought by the cross-complaint or answer of the defendant. The particle an is equivalent to " any," and the provisions of the section are applicable to an action in interpleader. Kaufman V. Superior Ct., 115 Cal. 155. Equivalent to "One." — People v. Ogdeh, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 464. 4. See Von Gerichten . St. *9? Rep. 525 ; Fisher v. Badger, 95 Mo. App. 289 ; Decker v. Holgate, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 56. 3. Seizure Damage Feasant — Right to Distrain. — Jones v. Habberman, 94 Mo. App. 1. Exception in Case of Dog. — A dog is not sub- ject to seizure damage feasant. Fisher v. Badger, 95 Mo. App. 289 ; Goff v. Byers, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 1037, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 358; Gilbert v. Stephens, 6 Okla. 673, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 358. 359. 3. Statutory Regulation. — Little v. Swafford, 14 Ind. App. 7; Lynch v. Ford, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 536. 360. 1. Constitutionality of the Statutes. — Randall v. Gross, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 223. See Greer v. Downey, (Ariz. 1903) 71 Pac. Rep. 900, holding statute to be uncon- stitutional. 2. Statutes Must Be Strictly Complied With. — Hill v. Ginn, 2 Penn. (Del.) 174; Holaman v. Marsh, 116 Iowa 483; Sloan v. Bain, 47 Neb. 914; McAllister v. Wrede, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 318; Burns v. Morrow, (County Ct.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 657. Failure to Give Notice. — Chase v. Putnam, 117 Cal. 364. Verbal Notice Sufficient. — Healy v. Jordan, 103 Iowa 735. 361. 1. Animals at Large on Highway — Common-law Rule. — Patterson v. Fanning, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 415, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 361, affirmed 2 Ont. L. Rep. 462. Leaving Horse Unhitched and Unattended, Neg- ligence. — Manthey v. Rauenbuehler, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 173; Wagner v. New York Con- densed Milk Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 62. Runaway Team. — If a horse left alone runs away, negligence is presumed. Davis v. Kall- felz, (County Ct.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 602. Horse Escaping to Street. — The owner of a horse which has escaped into the street, hav- ing no knowledge of any vicious propensities, is not liable for injuries resulting to a boy who was kicked while trying to catch the horse. The boy was guilty of contributory negligence in trying to catch the horse. Flett v. Coulter, 5 Ont. L. Rep. 375. ViciouB Steer on Highway — Master Liable. — -Byrne v. Morel, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 193. 362. 1. Driving Animals Throngh Streets — Duty and Liability. — Myers v. Lape, 10 1 111. App. 182 ; O'Neill v. Blase, 94 Mo. App. 648. A Man Has a Right to Drive His Cattle Along the Public Highways.— Erdman y, Gpttjshalj, o Pa, Super, C^, 295, 363-368 ANIMALS. Vol. It. 363. Animals Unlawfully on Highway. — See note I. 364. d. Proof of Scienter — When Necessary. — See note i. 365. When Animal Is a Trespasser. — See note I. 366. e. Injuries by Dogs — (i) In General — The Owner of a vicioni Dog. See note 2. 368. Gist of the Action. — See note I. Driving Bull in Street. — Clowdis v. Fresno Flume, etc., Co., 118 Cal. 315, 62 Am. St. Rep. 238; Pfaffinger v. Gilman, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1088, which cases affirm the liability of the owner. Contributory Negligence — Assisting Person in Danger. — Manthey v. Rauenbuehler, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 173. 363. 1. Animals on Highway in Violation of Statutes. — Patterson v. Fanning, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 462, affirming 1 Ont. L. Rep. 412; Leonard v. Doherty, 174 Mass. 565; Healey v. Ballan- tine, 66 N. J. L. 345 ; Stern v. Hoffman Brew- ing Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 794; Eddy v. Union R. Co., 25 R. I. 451; Decker v. McSorley, m Wis. 91. Compare Flett v. Coulter, 5 Ont. L. Rep. 375. Horse Unlawfully on Sidewalk. — A horse standing on a sidewalk, where he had no right to be, kicked a passer-by, and the owner was held liable, although he had no knowledge of his vicious propensities. Hardiman v. Whol- ley, 172 Mass. 411, 70 Am. St. Rep. 292. 364. 1. Domestic Animals Rightfully in the Place. — Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351; Fritsche v. Clemow, 109 111. App. 355; Ward v. Danzeizen, in 111. App. 163; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Walsh, 78 HI. App. 595 ; Perry v. Cobb, (Indian Ter. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 289; Parsons v. Manser, 119 Iowa 88, 97 Am. St. Rep. 283 ; Healey v. Ballantine, 66 N. J. L. 345, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 364; O'Connell v. Mooney, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 641 ; Hallyburton v. Burke County Fair Assoc, 119 N. Car. 526; Eddy v. Union R. Co., 25 R. I. 451, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 364; Patterson v. Fanning, 1 Ont. L. Rep. 416, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 361, affirmed 2 Ont. L. Rep. 462; Noel v. Duchesneau, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 352. Evidence of Viciousness. — Talmage v. Mills, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 382. The fact that horses had run away before, but on that occasion were frightened by boys snow-balling, is not sufficient evidence of viciousness to render the owner liable. Benoit v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 154 N. Y. 223. Evidence of Viciousness Held Insufficient. — Eastman v. Scott, 182 Mass. 192; Lawlor v. French, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 140 ; McHugh v. New York, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 299. The Requisite Scienter may be proved by notice of those circumstances which should have placed a reasonably prudent man on guard and which, on reasonable inquiry, would have afforded information of the true char- acter of the animal. Actual personal knowl- edge or proof of the vicious propensities of the animal is not necessary. McCready v. Stepp, 104 Mo. App. 340. Dooile Conduct After Injury. — Subsequent Conduct of the animal cannot be considered in determining the scienter. Woodward v. Loomis,.64 N. Y. App. Div. 27. Knowledge of Servant. — ■ The knowledge of a servant to whom the animal is intrusted is imputed to the master. Clowdis v. Fresno Flume, etc., Co., 118 Cal. 315, 62 Am. St. Rep. 238; Brown v. Green, 1 Penn. (Del.) 535 ; O'Neill v. Blase, 94 Mo. App. 648. Under the English Dogs Act of 1865, proof of scienter is unnecessary in the case of the kill- ing of a trespassing sheep by the defendant's dog. Grange v. Silcock, 18 Cox C. C. 644, 77 L. T. N. S. 340. Question for Jury. — The questions of vicious- ness and scienter are for the jury. Brooks v. Brooks, (Ky. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 645. Proof of Savage Nature Sufficient. — Bennett v. Mallard, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 112. Previous Vicious Acts. — Proof of previous vicious acts should go to the jury from which to determine the scienter. Tolmie v. Standard Oil Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 332. 365. 1. Rule Where the Animal Is Tres- passer. — Perry v. Cobb, (Indian Ter. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 289 ; Smith v. Selinsgrove, 199 Pa. St. 615; Troth v. Willis, 42 W. N. C. (Pa.) 504. 366. 2. Vicious Dogs — General Rule as to Liability. — Norris v. Warner, 59 111. App. 300 ; Speckmann v. Kreig, 79 Mo. App. 376; Glad- stone v. Brinkhurst, 70 N. J. L. 130; Schilling v. Smith, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 464; Boler v. Sorgenfrei, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 180; Zimett v. Hollenback, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 564; Harris v. Eaton, 20 R. I. 81; Kelly v. Alderson, 19 R. I. 544 ; Trrolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698; Price v. Wright, 35 N. Bruns. 26. Vicious Dog a Nuisance. — Leonard v. Don- oghue, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 104; Woodbridge v. Marks, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 604. Right to Keep a Dog. — Sanders v. O'Cal- laghan, in Iowa 574; De Gray v. Murray, 69 N. J. L. 458; Woodbridge v. Marks, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 139. Watch Dog. — Hayes v. Smith, 62 Ohio St 161. Injury Without Vicious Intent on. Part of Dog. — Carroll v. Marcoux, 98 Me. 25g. 368. 1. Gist of Action — Keeping Dog with Knowledge of Its Viciousness — Delaware. — Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351. Illinois. — Ahlstrand v. Bishop, 88 111. App. 424. Maine. — Carroll v. Marcoux, 98 Me. 259. Michigan. — Fye v. Chapin, 121 Mich. 675. Minnesota. — Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut, 9* Minn. 17. Missouri. — Speckmann v. Kreig, 79 MO. App. 376. New York. — Lawlor v. French, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 140; Woodbridge v. Marks, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 604; Schilling v. Smith, 70" N. V, 292 Y?Ui. ANIMALS. 369 371 368. 369. 370. 371. A Prima Facie Liability. — See note 2. Proof of Negligence Not Necessary. — See note 3. Dog as a Trespasser. — See note 4. (2) Proof of Scienter Necessary — (a) Generally. — See notes 1, 2. In Many States Statutes Have Been Enacted. — See note 3. (b) How Shown. — See note 4. See note 1. In Some Instances. — See note I. (3) Measure of Damages. — See note 2. App. Div. 464 ; Leonard v. Donoghue, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 104. Texas. — Triolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698. 36S. 2. Prima Facie Liable. — De Gray v. Murray, 69 N. J. L. 458 ; McConnell v. Lloyd, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 25. 3. Presumption of Negligence. — Fye v. Chapin, 121 Mich. 675; Speckmann v. Kreig, 79 Mo. App. 376; Woodbridge v. Marks, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 604, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 139; Schilling v. Smith, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 464 ; Boler v. Sor- genfrei, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 180; Hayes v. Smith, 62 Ohio St. 161, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 368; Triolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698. 4. Liability for Trespassing Dog. — O'Connell v. Jarvis, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 3. 369. 1. General Role — Proof of Knowledge of Viciousness Necessary. — Friedmann v. Mc- Gowan, 1 Penn. (Del.) 436; Feldman v. Sellig, no 111. App. 130; Cuney v. Campbell, 76 Minn, 59 ; De Gray v. Murray, 69 N. J. L. 458 ; Strub- ing v. Mahar, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; Peck v. Williams, 24 R. I. 583 ; Triolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698 ; Plummer v. Ricker, 71 Vt. 114. 2. Proof of Savage Nature of Dog Equivalent to Express Notice on Part of Owner. — Friedmann v. McGowan, 1 Penn. (Del.) 436 ; Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351; Tubins v. Dis- trict of Columbia, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 267 ; Johnson v. Eckberg, 94 111. App.- 634; O'Neill v. Blase, 94 Mo. App. 648. 3, Statutory EnactmentB — Iowa. — Sanders v. O'Callaghan, m Iowa 574. Kentucky. — Dillehay v. Hickey, 71 S. W. Rep. 1, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1220; Bush v. Wathen, 104 Ky. 548; Wooldridge v. White, 105 Ky. 247. Maine. — Carroll v. Marcoux, 98 Me. 259. Massachusetts. — Riley v. Harris, 177 Mass. 163. Michigan. — Fye v. Chapin, 121 Mich. 675. Rhode Island. — Peck v. Williams, 24 R. I. 5S3. _ Wisconsin. — Nelson v. Nugent, 106 Wis. 477, 80 Am. St. Rep. 51. 4. How Scienter Shown — Attendant Circum- stances. — Price v. Wright, 35 N. Bruns. 26; Duval v. Barnaby, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 154; Dorer v. Winchester, 70 Vt. 418. If the dog had made vicious attacks upon other persons, without biting them, it is suffi- cient knowledge to the owner. Johnson v. Eck- berg, 94 HI. App. 634. Question for Jury. — Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351 ; Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut, 92 Minn. 17; Trinity, etc., R. Co. u. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 690. Keeping Dog Confined. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kuckkuck, 98 111. App. 252, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 369 ; Sanders v. O'Callaghan, hi Iowa 374; Speck- mann v. Kreig, 79 Mo. App. 376 ; Leonard v. Donoghue, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 104; Woodbridge v. Marks, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 139; Plummer v. Ricker, 71 Vt. 114. The fact that a dog is kept confined should go to the jury to determine the scienter. Fried- mann v. McGowan, 1 Penn. (Del.) 436. 370. 1. Proof of Good Disposition of Dog Inadmissible. — Johnson v. Eckberg, 94 111. App. 634; Carroll r Marcoux, 98 Me. 259; Glad- stone v. Brinkhurst, 70 N. J. L. 130; Talmage v. Mills, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 382. Evidence of Bad Reputation of Dog Competent. — Fisher v. Weinholzer, 91 Minn. 22; Triolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698. Proof that the dog has on former occasions chased teams is admissible. Broderick v. Hig- ginson, 169 Mass. 482, 61 Am. St. Rep. 296. Implied Notice of Viciousness. — Rowe v. Ehr- manntraut, 92 Minn. 17; Hayes v. Smith, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 92. See also Nelson v. Barrett, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 468. In Bauer v. Lyons, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 204, the plaintiff, who had been bitten by defendant's dogs, gave evidence tending to prove that the dogs had about two weeks prior to the time of this occurrence attacked and bitten another person, and that the defendant had been ad- vised of it. This was held sufficient to require the submission of the question to the jury whether the defendant was chargeable with such notice of the vicious disposition of the dogs as to render him liable to the plaintiff for suffering them to run at large. Notice to Servant— Notice to Master. — Duval v. Barnaby, 75 N: Y. App. Div. 154. The knowledge of the servant should not necessarily be imputed to the master. Fried- mann v. McGowan, 1 Penn. (Del.) 436. Notice to Agent. — Niland v. Geer, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 194. Notice to Wife of Owner. — Boler v. Sorgen- frei, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 180. Notice to the wife is notice to the husband, of the vicious propensities of a dog. Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351. Notice to One Joint Owner is notice to all. Haves v. Smith, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 92. 371. 1. Proof of Knowledge that Dog Had Previously Bitten a Goat Insufficient, — Osborne v. Chocqueel, (1896) 2 Q. B. 109. 2. Matters to Be Considered in Estimating 293 ^7 2-37 8 373. ANIMALS. Vol. II. 373. 374. 375. 377. I. 2. 378. Statutes Allowing Double Damages. — See note I. (4) Contributory Negligence as a Defense. — bee note 3. See note 1. (5) Injuries to Sheep — At Common Law. — bee note 1 . Statutes Abolishing Proof of Scienter., — See note 2. (6) Liability of Harbor er of Dog. — See note 1 . /.Joint Owners — Apportionment of Damages. — See notes Statutory Changes — Dogs Killing Sheep. — See note I . HI. Estbays — 1. Definition. — See note 2. DamageB.— Friedmann v. McGowan, i Penn. (Del.) 436; Barclay v. Hartman, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351; Brown v. Green, 1 Penn. (Del.) 53s; Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa 150; O'Neill v. Blase, 94 Mo. App. 648 ; Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 690. Permanent Disfigurement — Speculative Dam- ages. — In an action for the biting of a girl five years old, it was held erroneous to instruct the jury that if they thought the scar on her face, caused by the bite, was likely to be permanent, and that the disfigurement might affect her prospects of making a good marriage, they might consider such fact in assessing the dam- ages, as such damages were too speculative and remote. Price v. Wright, 35 N. Bruns. 26. Exemplary Damages. — Hahn u. Kordula, 5 Kan. App. 142 ; Triolo v. Foster, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 698; Sanders v. O'Callaghan, in Iowa 574. 372. 1. Statutes Authorizing Double Damages. — Riley v. Harris, 177 Mass. 163; Fye v. Chapin, 121 Mich. 67s ; Unity v. Pike, 68 N. H. Dog Killing Sheep — Ten Times Damages. — Rausch v. Barrere, 109 La. 563. 8. Contributory Negligence as Defense. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kuckkuck, 197 111. 308, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 372; Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa 150; Schilling v. Smith, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 464. See also Fye v. Chapin, 121 Mich. 675. 373. 1. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kuckkuck, 197 111. 308, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 373. Person Inciting Attack. — Feldman v. Sellig, no 111. App. 130; Bush v. Wathen, 104 Ky. 548; Wooldridge v. White, 105 Ky. 247. But the act inviting the attack must take place at the time the attack is made in order to constitute a defense. Schilling v. Smith, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 464. Provoking Vicious Horse. — A person who caused the injury to himself by provoking a vicious horse cannot recover damages of the owner. Brown v. Green, 1 Penn. (Del.) 535- Boy Teasing Dog. — It appeared that a boy thirteen years of age had been teasing a dog which was confined in a house, and that the daughter of the dog's owner released the dog. It was held that an action could be maintained for damage done by the dog. Bernier v. Gene- reux, 12 Quebec K. B. 24. Injury to Trespasser. — Peck v. Williams, 24 R. I. 583. A peddler entering without permission is technically a trespasser, but the owner is liable for injuries inflicted by his dog. Carroll v. Marcoux, 98 Me. 259. Trespasser — Dog Kept for Protection. — Sanders v. O'Callaghan, m Iowa 574; Leon- orovitz v. Ott, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) ssi. Dog in Safe Place. — The owner of a dog which is confined in a safe place is not liable for damages to a boy who stuck his hand into the inclosure and was bitten by the dog. Badali v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 642. 374. 1. Dogs Injuring Sheep. — psborne v. Chocqueel^ (1896) 2 Q. B. 109. 2. Statutory Enactments. — O'Connell v. Jar- vis, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 3; Nelson v. Nugent, 106 Wis. 477, 80 Am. St. Rep. 51. Evidence of Previous Character of Dog. — Kelly v. Alderson, 19 R. I. 544. Owner Killing Dog — Evidence of -Identity. — Peeler u. McMillan, 91 Mo. App. 310. 375. 1. Harborer of Vicious Dog — Rule as to Liability. — Gardner v . Hart, 44 W. R. 527 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kuckkuck, 197 111. 308; Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa 150; Hahn v. Kor- dula, 5 Kan. App. 142; Leonard v. Donoghue, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 104; Lynt v. Moore, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 487 ; Duval v. Barnaby, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 154; Hayes v. Smith, 62 Ohio St. 161. Keeping on Premises of Another. — Boylan v. Everett, 172 Mass. 433. " Owner or Keeper " Defined. — Jenkinson v. Coggins, 123 Mich. 7. Liability of Master — Dog Kept by Servant. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kuckkuck, 98 111. App. 252, affirmed 197 111. 304. Husband and Wife. — Hugron u. Statton, 18 Quebec Super. Ct. 200. Father and Child. — The father is liable for damages done by a dog kept on his premises by his son. Plummer v. Ricker, 71 Vt. 114. Keeping Dog Short Time Not Liable. — O'Don- nell v. Pollock, 170 Mass. 441. 377. 1. Damages by Several Animals Belong- ing to Different Persons. — Williams v. Wood- worth, 33 Nova Scotia 271 ; Nierenberg v. Wood, 59 N. J. L. 112 ; Shultz v. Quinn, 2 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 141. 2. Equal Share of Damages. — Williams v. Woodworth, 32 Nova Scotia 271. 378. 1. Sheep-killing Dogs — Statutes. — Nelson v. Nugent, 106 Wis. 477, 80 Am. St. Rep. 51. 2. Estray Defined. — The statute (2 Rev. Stat. N. Y. 351) relating to estrays applies more par- ticularly to animals straying on the highways than to those trespassing upon private prop- 294 Vol. II. ANIMALS— ANNUITIES. 380 390 380. IV. Communicating Disease. — See note 2. 382. Proof of Scienter — When Neoessary. — See note I. 384. ANNOUNCE. — See note i . 385. ANNUAL — ANNUALLY. — See note 2. erty. Boyce v. Perry, (County Ct.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 355- • 380. 2. Constitutionality of Statutes as to Im- porting Diseased Animals. - — See St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 45 1- 382. 1. Croff v. Cresse, 7 Okla. 408. 384. 1. Announcement Equivalent to Procla- mation — Election Law. — See Dooley v. Van Hohenstein, 170 111. 630. 385. 2. Bailey's Estate, 23 Fa. Co. Ct. 142, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 385, note 2. And see to the same effect Henry v. Henderson, 81 Miss. 743; Mower u. Sanford, 76 Conn. 504. Filing Certificate of Incorporation. — In a stat- ute requiring officers of a corporation to file a certificate of corporate condition, the word annually does not mean twice in one year, but yearly or once in one year. Continental Nat. Bank p. Buford, 107 Fed. Rep. 188. ANNUITIES. By W. H. Crow. 387. I. Definition. — See note i. Term Used in a Broader Sense. — See notes 2, 3, 4. 388. II. How Cbeated — 1. In General. — See note i. 2. Contract for Annuity. — See note 2. 389. in. Characteristics — 1. Generally — a. Distinguished from Income. — See note 4. 390. b. Distinguished from Legacy. — See note 1. 387. 1. The Term Defined. — Henrys. Hen- derson, 81 Miss. 743. 2. Nehls v. Sauer, 119. Iowa 440 ; Krigbaum v. Irvine, 10 Ohio Dec. 226, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 387. Sum Payable Quarterly May Be an Annuity. — Price v. Price, 66 S. W. Rep. 529, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 191 1, 1947. Contingent Annuity. — Stover's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 282: S. Krigbaum v. Irvine, 10 Ohio Dec. 226. Annuity Is in Nature of Contingent Debt. — Where an insolvent made an assignment for the benefit of creditors and previous to the assign- ment he had covenanted with trustees to pay an annuity to his wife, it was held that the grow- ing payments were in the nature of contingent debts and that the trustees were not entitled, under Rev. Stat. Ont., c. 147, to rank on the estate of the insolvent for the present value of such payments. Carswell v. Langley, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 261. 4. Krigbaum v. Irvine, 10 Ohio Dec. 226. See Nehls v. Sauer, 119 Iowa 440. 388. 1. Contract. — Cahill v. Maryland L. Ins. Co., 90 Md. 333, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 388. Ademption of Annuity. — A testator by his will gave to each of his two daughters an annuity for life of six thousand dollars. After making the will he gave to one daughter, absolutely, bonds sufficient to produce an income of a little more than one thousand two hundred dollars a year, and by a codicil reduced her annuity by that amount. He subsequently gave to the other daughter, absolutely, bonds sufficient to produce an income of a little more than one thousand two hundred dollars a year, and in- structed his solicitor to alter his will so as to reduce her annuity by that amount, but died suddenly before his will was altered. The court held that the doctrine of ademption ap- plied, and that notwithstanding the different nature of the two gifts, and even without evi- dence of intention, the second daughter's an- nuity must be treated as adeemed pro tanto. Tuckett-Lawry v. Lamoureaux, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 577, affirming 1 Ont. L. Rep. 364. A Widow May Have Both Dower and an Annuity where there is nothing in the gift of the an- nuity inconsistent with the right to dower and she is not required to elect as to which she will take. Cowan v. Allen, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 292. 2. Release of a Debt of four thousand dollars for a grant of an annuity of sixty-two dollars and fifty cents every three months, -is a good consideration for the annuity. Price v. Price, 66 S. W. Rep. 529, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1911, 1947. 389. 4. Income and Annuity Distinguished. — Matter of Brown, 143 Cal. 450 ; Homer v. Landis, 95 Md. 320 ; Matter of Von Keller, (Surrogate Ct.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 600; Chisholm v. Shields, 67 Ohio St. 374; Overton v. Lea, 108 Tenn. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 389. See also Angle v. Angle, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 425. 390. 1. legacy and Annuity Distinguished — Krigbaum v. Irvine, 10 Ohio Dec. 226. 295 891-306 ANNUITIES. Vol. II. 391. 3. When an Incumbrance. — See note 5. 392. 4. Liability for Taxes. — See note 1. 393. IV. Dtjbation — 1. For Life or Perpetual. — See note 1. Simple Gilt of Annuity. — See note 2. 394. 2. Maintenance and Education. — See note 2. 396. V. Oh What Pbopebty Chargeable — 1. In General — A Question of Intention. — See note 3. 391. 6. Mortgagee of Property Charged.— A mortgagee is not an innocent purchaser for value where a deed granting annuities is on record when he receives his mortgage, and he takes subject to the annuities. Bentley v. Gardner, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 216. Extent of Charge Is Dependent on Terms of Will. — Where a testator charges land with the pay- ment of an annuity, an agreement between the devisees and the annuitant charging the land to a greater extent for the payment of the annuity is ineffectual as to a subsequent purchaser of the land who has no actual notice of such agreement, and such purchaser will take the land subject only to 'the charge imposed by the will. Thus, where the will provided that the annuity should be paid out of the funds of the estate and directed that if there were not sufficient funds therefor, it was to be a charge on separate parcels of land devised to other persons, and there were sufficient funds in the executors' hands for the payment of the an- nuity, but by an agreement for a valuable con- sideration made between the annuitant and the devisees, it was agreed that the annuity should not be paid out of the funds, but should be a charge on the lands, it was held that a subse- quent purchaser without actual notice of the agreement was not affected thereby, and that the lands purchased by him were not liable for the payment of the annuity so long as there were sufficient funds in the executors' hands to pay it. Coolidge v. Nelson, 31 Ont. 646. Eespective liability of Life Tenant and Remain- derman. — A testator .seized in fee of land sub- ject to a mortgage to secure an annuity for his wife, devised. the land for life, remainder over in fee. After the death of the testator the life tenant continued to pay the annuity to the widow. She also sold the timber on the land, claiming the right to do so on account of her payments on the annuity. In a suit by the re- mainderman to restrain waste, it was held that periodical payments of the annuity must be treated partly as interest which the tenant for life had to pay, and partly as principal for which she would have a charge on the inherit- ance in the proportion which the value of the life estate bore to the value of the remainder, and an injunction was granted restraining the cutting of the timber. Whitesell v. Reece, 5 Ont. L. Rep. 352. 392. 1. Angle v. Angle, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 42s. Purchase Honey — Payments in Yearly Instal- ments with Interest — Income Tax. — See Sec- retary of State v. Scable, (1903) A. C. 299, affirming (1903) 1 K. B. 494. 393. 1. Duration —Question of Construction. — Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Dancel, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 692, citing 2 An. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 393. See also Davis v. People, in 111. App. 207. Annuity Payable for Five Years. — In Hough- teling v. Stockbridge, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 759, the court held that the construction of the will showed that the annuities should cease to be paid after five years; though the estate was not settled until ten years after the death of the testator. Terminating with Distribution of Estate. — Where a testator gave an annuity to his wife and to another with a provision that the estate should be divided after the death of his wife, the wife's decease was held to put an end to the other annuity. Matter of Charlier, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 71. Annuity During Widowhood. — It has been held that the gift of an annuity, limited to the widowhood of the annuitant, is not invalid as being in undue restraint of marriage. Cowan v. Allen, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 292. 2. Mere Gift of Annuity, Without More — Con- tinues for Life Only. — Goodyear Shoe Machin- ery Co. v. Dancel, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 692, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 393 ; In re Follett, 23 R. I. 410, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 393- Pur Autre Vie. — Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Dancel, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 692; In re Follett, 23 R. I. 410. " A bequest of an annuity to A for a definite term of years, or during the life of B, is a gift to A and his personal representative during the term or during the life of B, and does not ex- pire at the death of A." Matter of Viele, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 211, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 393. Annuity Held to Be for Life. — Where a will provided that an annuity should be paid to the testator's wife during her life, and provided for the payment of annuities to other relatives, without specifying their duration, and the will further directed that on the deaths of the re- spective annuitants the annuities should be divided between persons named, it was held that all of the annuities were for the lives of the annuitants only. Ward v. Ward, (1903) 1 Ir. R. 2ii. 394. 2. Annuity for Maintenance of Annui- tant's Daughter — Death of Annuitant. — Where a testator directed his trustees to pay an art nuity to his wife during widowhood, and to pay her a further annuity until his daughter should attain the age of twenty-one years, to be applied to the maintenance and education of the daughter, and the widow died while the daughter was an infant, it was held that the further annuity did not thereupon cease to be payable. In re Yates, (1901) 2 Ch. 438. 396. 3. Intention. — Overton v. Lea, 108 Tenn. 529. 296 Vol. II. ANNUITIES. 897-409 397. 399. 400. note i. 401. 402. 2. Personal Estate Primarily Liable. — See note 2, 3. Charge on Specific Real Estate. — See note 3. 5. Devise Subject to Annuity. — See note 1. VI. Right of Annuitant to Capital Sum. — r See note 2. VII. Apportionment — 1. Generally — Common-law Rule. Exceptions. — See "notes 2, 3. 2. Annuity in Lieu of Dower. — See notes 2, 3. 3. Statutory Changes. — See note 4. VIII. Payment — 1. From What Time. — See note 1. See 397. 2. Personal Estate Primarily Liable. — In case the estate of the covenantor who has granted a life annuity is not sufficient to pay the full amount of the annuity, the whole of the fund must be paid to the annuitant. Ash- win v. Bullock, 81 L. T. N. S. 48. Charge on Seal Estate — Exoneration of Per- sonal Estate. — Where a testator died possessed of freehold and leasehold property as well as ordinary personalty, and by his will he devised and bequeathed all his property, real and per- sonal, to his son, and charged all the real and freehold property with the payment of an an- nuity to each of his daughters, it was held that the annuities were charged only on the free- holds and not on the leaseholds or other per- sonalty. Greer v. Waring, (1896) 1 Ir. R. 427. 3. Annuity Charged on Specific Eeal Estate. — An annuity in lieu of dower granted in an ante- nuptial contract will be chargeable, after the death of the husband, dying intestate, upon the whole estate and .not solely upon the half vest- ing in the heirs at law of the deceased. Christy v. Marmon, 163 111. 225. See also Baylies v. Hamilton, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 133. 399. 1. Liability of Residuary Legatees Inter Se. — Where a testator by his will, after giving certain legacies, devised and bequeathed his residuary estate to trustees on trust to pay out of the income thereof an annuity to his widow during her life, and subject thereto to divide the residuary estate into as many shares as there should be children living at his death, and to pay the annual income of such shares to his children, and he was survived by six children, it was held that each child's share must bear one-sixth of the annuity; that if the income of his share exceeded his proportion of the an- nuity he would be entitled to the surplus ; that if his share of the income was not equal to his proportion of'the full annuity, he must make good the deficiency ; and that when his income was enlarged by the death of the annuitant he would have to account to the other children for the difference between the portion of his in- come that had been applied to the payment of the annuity and the sum that he ought to have provided for that purpose. Re Hargreaves, 88 L. T. N. S. 100, modifying 86 L. T. N. S. 43. 2. Life Annuity Liable to Forfeiture. — Where a life annuity had been given by a covenantor in terms which rendered it liable to forfeiture, in the event the annuitant should do or suffer some act, whereby the annuity or any part thereof, if belonging to him absolutely, would become vested in some other person, and such annuity had been valued in an action to ad- minister the estate of the covenantor, which was not sufficient to pay the annuity in full, it was held that the annuitant was entitled to have the whole of the fund representing the value of the annuity paid to him. In re Sinclair, (1897) 1 Ch. 921, following Wroughton v. Colquhoun, 1 De G. & Sm. 357, and disapproving Carr v. Ingleby, 1 De G. & Sm. 362. 400. 1. Apportionment of Annuities — Con- necticut. — Mower v. Sanford, 76 Conn. 504, 100 Am. St. Rep. 1008. Iowa. — Nehls v. Sauer, 119 Iowa 440. Michigan. — Chase v. Darby, no Mich. 314, 64 Am. St. Rep. 347. Mississippi. — Henry v. Henderson, 81 Miss. 743- Pennsylvania. — Bailey's Estate, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 139, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law' (2d ed.) 400. Rhode Island. — Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Harris, 20 R. I. 163, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 400. 2. Apportionment of Annuity for Support and Maintenance. — Cincinnati v. Strobridge, 9 Ohio Dec. 652, 7 Ohio N. P. 532 ; Bailey's Estate, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 139, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 400. See also Chase v. Darby, no Mich. 314, 64 Am. St. Rep. 347; Henry v. Henderson, 81 Miss. 743. 3. See Chase v. Darby, no Mich. 314, 64 Am. St. Rep. 347 ; Henry v. Henderson, 81 Miss. 743- 401. 2. Annuity in Lieu of Sower. — Mower v. Sanford, 76 Conn. 504, 100 Am. St. Rep. 1008; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Harris, 20 R. I. 163, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 401. 3. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Harris, 20 R. I. 163, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 401. See also Henry v. Hender- son, 81 Miss. 743. 4. Statutory Changes — Rhode Island. — Gen. Laws R. I., c. 203, §§ 38, 39, provide for the appointment for the current year of an an- nuity given by will unless provision be made to the contrary. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Harris, 20 R. I. 163. Massachusetts. — Woods v. Gilson, 178 Mass. 5". New Jersey. — See Parker v. Seeley, 56 N. J. Eq. no. 402. 1. When Annuity Payable. — Mower v. Sanford, 76 Conn. 504, 100 Am. St. Rep. 1008; Henry v. Henderson, 81 Miss. 743. By the Civil Code of California, § 1368, it is provided that " annuities commence at the tes- tator's decease." See Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 131- May Be Paid in Instalments. — ■ In the absence 297 403-408 ANNUITIES. Vol. IL 403. 405. 406. 407. note i. 408. 2 When Entitled to Priority. — See note I. 3 How Enforced — a. In General. — See note 5. 1. Arrears — £. When Payable Out of Corpus. — See note 1. Besiduary Fund Set Apart. — See note 2. Charged on Income of Estate. — See note I . c. When Payable Out of Income — Corpus to Bemain intact. — bee d. Interest — When Allowed. — See note 2. 5. Value — How Computed. — See note 2. of any provision in the will as to the time of payment of an annuity, it will not be payable in advance, but may, in the discretion of the executor, having due regard to the condition of the estate and the collection of its income, be paid in instalments, providing that by the end of the year the legatee must receive the full amount of the annuity for that year. Rucker v. Maddox, 114 Ga. 899. Gift of Money to Be Used in Purchase of Annuity. — A sum of money bequeathed to executors to be used by them in the purchase of an annuity carries interest only from a date twelve months after the death of the testator. This rule was applied where the testator bequeathed to his executors a sum of money free of duty, to be laid out by them in the purchase of an annuity for his daughter, and the will contained no clause for maintenance nor was there any fur- ther provision made for the daughter. Re Friend, 78 L. T. N. S. 222. 403. 1. Kimball v. Cooney, 27 Ont. App. 453 ; Re McKenzie, 4 Ont. L. Rep. 707. Widow. — A widow who has failed for sev- eral years to urge her claim to priority over other legatees taking annuities, must be held to have acquiesced in the course of the executor in making pro rata payments ; she cannot com- plain after such a continued acquiescence. Houghteling v. Stockbridge, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 759- 6. Bight of Distress. — In November, 1 83 1 , a testator devised certain lands to his daughters A and B, as tenants in common in tail. A married C, and B married D. In 1858, by a deed of settlement on her marriage, B disen- tailed her moieties and settled them on a trust to pay the income to her husband D for his life or until he became bankrupt, and then for the issue of the marriage, and in default of issue (which was the case) or in default of ap- pointment, for her next of kin. B died in 1862, and her husband D became bankrupt in 1878, whereupon A became entitled to the entire property. In 1881 a deed was executed be- tween A, her husband C, and D, whereby A, with the assent of her husband, in contempla- tion of D's second marriage, agreed to grant to D an annuity charged on the moieties, shares, and premises comprised in the marriage settle- ment of 1858, payable out of the rents, profits, and income thereof respectively. By that deed it was provided that if the annuity 5hould be- come in arrears, the annuitant could enter into and distrain upon all or any of the moieties, shares, or premises, and hold them and receive and take the rents and profits thereof until the arrears were satisfied. The rental value of the undivided moiety eventually became quite in- sufficient to satisfy the annuity, the profits of the whole hardly amounting to that sum. In a suit to enjoin the annuitant from distraining, it was held that though he had power to dis- train on the entirety of the lands, the deed gave him no power to distrain for more than one-half of the rents and profits of the whole. Ashwin v. Bullock, 81 L. T. N. S. 48. 405. 1. Arrears Payable Out of Annuitant's Share of Estate. — A testator set apart a fund as a provision for his wife and also for his children until their majority or marriage. He gave the residue of his estate to his children living at his death and directed that it should be divided on the death of all of them. He further directed that from majority or marriage each child was to receive the revenue derivable from his share, limited to six thousand dollars a year, each child being charged with a sub- stitution in favor of his or her children. In a suit brought by the eldest son to recover arrears of his annuity of six thousand dollars a year, it was held that according to the true intention of the testator as disclosed by the words of the will, the annuity of each child was a charge on the revenue of his own share and its arrears and not on the total revenue of the estate. Beaudry v. Barbeau, (1900) A. C. 569. 2. Direction to Set Aside Fund Which Is to Fall into the Besidue. — Re McKenzie, 4 Ont. L. Rep. 707. 406. 1. Income of Estate Charged with Pay- ment of Annuity. — Kimball v. Cooney, 27 Ont. App. 453 ; Re McKenzie, 4 Ont. L. Rep. 707. See also In re Metcalf, (1903) 2 Ch. 424. 407. 1. Corpus to Bemain Intact. — Homer v. Landis, 95 Md. 320. 2. Arrears of an Annuity Given by a Will Do Not as a Bule Carry Interest. — In re Hiscoe, 71 L. J. Ch. 347. 408. 2. Comparative Valuations of Immediate and Reversionary Annuities. — When a life an- nuity is given to persons in succession, and, the estate being ascertained to be insufficient at some period after the testator's death, it be- comes necessary to value the annuity for the purposes of administration, in order to fix the respective amounts to be received by immediate and reversionary annuitants, only the interest in the future of the annuities is valued and a prior annuitant is not required to bring into hotchpot sums paid to him before the date fixed for the making of the valuation. When the annuity of a prior annuitant who dies before a valuation is made is in arrears at his death, the arrears must be paid up out of the fund ap- plicable to that purpose, before a reversionary annuitant is entitled to claim anything, though the fund is thereby entirely exhausted, where it appears that under the terms of the will the trustees might have exhausted the whole of the 2q8 Vol. n. ANNUITIES — APPEAL. 409-425 409. X. Duties of Executoes and Trustees. — See note 2. 410. Entitled to Best Security Obtainable. — See note I. [ANONYMOUS. — See note 2a.] ANOTHER. — See note 3. 414. ANY. — See note 7. 417. See note 1. 419. See note 1. 420. APARTMENT. — See note 2. 432. APPARATUS. — See note 2. 423. APPARENT. — See notes 2, 3. 425. APPEAL. — See notes 2, 3. estate in payment of the immediate annuity. In re Metcalf, (1903) 2 Ch. 424. 409. 2. Duties of Executors and Trustees. — See Morse v. Tilden, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 560. That the amount to be set aside should be such as will be likely to continue to pay the amount of the annuity, see Hanbest's Estate, 5 Pa. Dist. 691, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 534. What Sum Should Be Set Aside. — The annui- tants are not entitled to have the estate of the testator converted into money further than may be necessary for the payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses. Their right is limited after this has been done, to having the annuities sufficiently secured by the setting aside ^of such part of the estate as may be adequate for that purpose ; and it is sufficient to set aside se- curities for such an amount as at the rate of four per cent, per annum will produce a yearly sum equal to the amount of the annuities to be provided for. Re Mclntyre, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 212, following In re Parry, 42 Ch. D. 570, and Har- bin v. Masterman, (1896) 1 Ch. 351. 410. 1. See Re Mclntyre, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 212, following In re Parry, 42 Ch. D. 570, and Harbin v. Masterman, (1896) 1 Ch. 351. 2a. Anonymous Publication. — In Williams v. Smith, 134 N. Car. 252, the court, referring to Acts N. Car. 1901, c. 557 (London Libel Law), said: "We find that the word anony- mous is defined in the Century Dictionary as ' of unknown name, one whose name is withheld, as an anonymous author, or as an anonymous pamphlet, or without any name, wanting a name, without the real name of the author, nameless.' The article is signed ' Smith.' The defendant's name is Isaac H. Smith. He refers to the plaintiff as ' one Williams,' and speaks of him as having been party to the suit for the recovery of usury. We are of the opinion that this article does not come within the definition of an anonymous publication." 3. Statute of Frauds. — See Allen v. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 377. More than One. — See Eastham v. Holt, 43 W. Va. 599. 414. 7. Comprehensive Sense. — People v. Van Cleave, 187 111. 135, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 414 ; Ludwig v. Cory, 158 Ind. 582, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 414; White v. Furgeson, 29 Ind. App. 144; Cox v. Island Min. Co., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 515, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 414 ; Heyler v. Watertown, 16 S. Dak. 25; Michels v. State, 115 Wis. 43. See also People v. Perales, 141 Cal. 583. "Any Action" includes a suit at law as well as a bill in chancery. Swedish-American Tele- phone Co. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 208 111. 576. "Any Property" in a statute prohibiting the sale of any property by a personal representa- tive without an order of court, embraces promissory notes. Browne v. Fidelity, etc., Co., (Tex. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 593. 417. 1, Limited Sense. — Brown v. Rushing, 70 Ark. in; Clark v. Lee, 185 Mass. 225; State v. Woodman, 26 Mont. 348 ; State v. Middletown Turnpike Co., 65 N. J. L. 73. At Any Time. — See Shellar v. Shivers, 171 Pa. St. 569. Any Person — Fellow Servants. — Miller v. Coffin, 19 R. I. 164. 419. 1. One Out of Several. — Winnebago County State Bank v. Hustel, 119 Iowa 115. One or More. — Matter of McGhee, 105 Iowa 9. 420. 2. Apartment House Distinguished from Tenement House. — See White v. Collins Bldg., etc., Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; McClure v. Leaycraft, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 518. 422. 2. Electric Light Company. — See Morrison v. Baechtold, 93 Md. 319. A typewriter is not a tool or apparatus belonging to the profession of a physician within the meaning of an exemption statute, though used for the purpose of correspondence and advertising. Massie v. Atchley, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 114. And see the title Exemptions (from Execution). 423. 2. See Chase v. Blodgett Milling Co., in Wis. 655, holding that the word apparent means " capable of being seen, or easily seen." 8. Self-defense — Apparent Danger. — State v. Carter, 15 Wash. 121. Same — Apparent Intention. — McCandless v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 58. The Term " Seasonably Apparent " in an instruction relating to future pain and suffer- ing is the equivalent of reasonably certain. Harrison v. Ayrshire, 123 Iowa 528. 425. 2. National Furniture Co. v. Ed- wards, 1 os Ga. 240; Rockford v. Compton, 115 111. App. 412, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 425 ; Nebraska L. & T. Co. v. Lincoln, etc., R. Co., S3 Neb. 246 ; State v. Savery, 126 N. Car. 1083. Technical Sense. — Western Cornice, etc., Works v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418 ; Ritchey v. Seeley, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 818. 3. Nebraska L. & T. Co. v. Lincoln, etc., R. Co., 53 Neb. 246, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. 299 497-439 APPEAR — APPLICA TION. Vol. II. 437. APPEAR. — See note 2. APPEARANCE. — See note 3. 428. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 43 1 . APPLIANCES. — See note - 3. 433. APPLICATION. — See note 1 . See note 3. of Law (2d ed.) 42s; State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 363. Popular Sense. — Western Cornice, etc., Works v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 425, 426 ; Caldwell v. State, (Wyo. 1903) 74 -Pac- R e P- 496. 427. 2. "Shall Be Made to Appear"— Re- moval of Causes. — The meaning of the words, " shall be made to appear to the said Circuit Court," in the Act of Congress 1887-88, pro- viding for the removal of causes " when it shall be made to appear to the said Circuit Court that from prejudice or local influence he will not be able to obtain justice in the state court," has been the subject of repeated ad- judication in the Circuit Courts of the United States, and has been discussed in the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that it must be made to appear to the legal satisfaction of the court; not that it be morally satisfied. Crotts v. Southern R. Co., 90 Fed. Rep. 1. 3. Boehmer v. Big Rock Irrigation Dist., 117 Cal. 19 ; Salina Nat. Bank v. Prescott, 60 Kan. 490; Matter of White, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 231, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 4 2 7. 428. 3. Exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction. — See Maxson v. Superior Ct., 124 Cal. 468. 431. 3. Master and Servant. — Broadfoot v. Shreveport-Cotton Oil Co., in La. 471, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 431 ; Gallman v. Union Hardwood Mfg. Co., 65 S. Car. 19s, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 431. See also Hicks v. Southern R. Co., 63 S. Car. 559 ; Bodie v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 61 S. Car. 468. School Appliances. — "Appliance is any- thing brought into use as a means to effect some end. An educational appliance is something necessary and useful to enable the teacher to teach the school children." Honaker v. Board of Education, 42 W. Va. 17b. 432. 1. Application for Insurance Policy. — See Webb v. Security Mut. L. Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 635. 300 APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS. By R. A. Greer. 435. II. By the Debtor — 1. General Rule. — See note 3. .437. III. By the Creditor — 2. Common-law Rule — Failure of Debtor to Direct — Creditor'* Right of Application. — See note I . Creditor May Consult His Own Interests Largely in Making the Application. — See note 2. 438. See notes 1, 2. 440. But Creditor May Hot Make Application Injurious or Unjust to Debtor. — See note I. 441. See note 1. 443. Illegal Demands. — See note 2. 435. 3. Debtor's Right of Application — Arkansas. — Farris v. Morrison, 66 Ark. 318. Colorado. — Boyd v. Agricultural Ins. Co., (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 986. Delaware. — Lodge v. Ainscow, 1 Penn. (Del.) 330. Georgia. — Massengale v. Pounds, 108 Ga. 762. Illinois. — Saffer v. Lambert, in 111. App. 410; Hahn v. Geiger, 96 111. App. 104; Brinck- erhoff v. Greenan, 85 111. App. 253. Kentucky. '■ — Howard v. London Mfg. Co., 72 S. W. Rep. 771, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1934. Missouri. — McMillan v. Grayston, 83 Mo. App. 428; Missouri Cent. Lumber Co. v. Stew- art, 78 Mo. App. 456 ; Littleton v. Harris, 69 Mo. App. 596. New York. — New England Water Works Co. v . Farmers' L. & T. Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 309, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 435. Pennsylvania. — Risher v. Risher, 194 Pa. St. 164. South Carolina. — Hopper v. Hopper, 61 S. Car. 124. Texas. — Crawford v. Pancoast, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 559. Wisconsin. — Johnston v. Northwestern Live- stock Ins. Co., 107 Wis. 337. 437. 1. Creditor's Right of Application — Arkansas. — Farris v. Morrison, 66 Ark. 3 1 8. Delaware. — Lodge v. Ainscow, 1 Penn. (Del.) 330. Iowa. — Keairnes v. Durst, no Iowa 114; Heatorl v. Ainley, 108 Iowa 112. Missouri. — McMillan v. Grayston, 83 Mo. App. 425 ; Missouri Cent. Lumber Co. v. Stew- art, 78 Mo. App. 456 ; Littleton v. Harris, 69 Mo. App. 596 ; Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 430. Nebraska. — Lenzen v. Miller, S3 Neb. 137. New Jersey. — Turner v. Hill, 56 N. J. Eq. 293- Pennsylvania. — Risher v. Risher, 194 Pa. St. 164. South Dakota. — Fargo v. Jennings, 8 S. Dak. 99. Texas. — Rotan Grocery Co. v. Martin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 706. Wisconsin. — Joniiston Hickerson v. Insurance Companies, 96 Tenn. 193. 637. 1. Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 637. 2. Family Relationship, Etc. — Produce Re- 318 Vol. II. ARBITRA TION AND A WARD. 637-645 637. e. Waiver of Objections. — See notes 3, 4. 638. 4. Duties of Arbitrator — a. Arbitrator Must Act Uprightly. — See note 4. 639. b. Must Act as Agent of Both Parties. — See note 2. c. Oath of Arbitrator — At Common Law. — See note 3. The Statutes of the Various States. — See note 4. 640. See note 1. 641. No Particular Form of Oath Required. — 'See note I. d. Arbitrators Must All Act Together— (i) General Rule. — See note 3. 643. (2) Refusal of Arbitrator to Act. — See note 1. 643. e. Arbitrators Must All Join in the Award — (i) General Rule. — See note 6. 645. (2) Rule in Public Matters. — See note 2. (3) When Majority Award Sufficient. — See note 3. frigerating Co. v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc, 91 Minn. 210. An award will be set aside when the umpire, who is appointed over the objection of a party, is related to the wife of the other party to the submission. Stinson v. Davis, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 550. 637.' 3. Waiver of Objections. — Robertson v. Lion Ins. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 928 ; Southern Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 113 Ga. 1088; Story v. De Armond, 179 111. *5io; Macdonald v. Bond, 195 111. 128; Seaton v. Kendall, 61 111. App. 289 ; Produce Refrigerating Co. v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc, 91 Minn. 210; Stemmer v. Scottish Union, etc., Ins. Co., 33 Oregon 74, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 637; Graham v. Bates, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 465 ; Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 637. 4. Objection Must Be Prompt. — Allen v. Hickam, 156 Mo. 58, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 637; Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 637. 638. 4. Hall v. Western Assur. Co., 133 Ala. 637; Orme v. Burney, 95 Ga. 418; Insurance Co. of North America v. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631 ; Read v. State Ins. Co., 103 Iowa 307, 64 Am. St. Rep. 180 ; Levine v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 66 Minn. 138 ; Produce Refrigerating Co. v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc, 91 Minn. 210; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 104 Mo. App. 502; Kiernan v. Dutchess County Mut. Ins. Co., 150 N. Y. 190; Kaiser v. Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 525 ; Grosvenor v. Flint, 20 R. I. 21 ; Hickerson v. Insurance Com- panies, 96 Tenn. 193 ; Royal Ins. Co. v. Parlin, etc., Co., 12 Tex. Civ. App. 572; Consolidated Water Power Co. v. Nash, 109 Wis. 490; Bart- lett v. L. Bartlett, etc., Co., 116 Wis. 450. Proof of Misfeasance or Malfeasance of Arbitrat- ors. — Barnard v. Lancashire Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 36. 639. 2. Hall v. Western Assur. Co., 133 Ala. 637; Produce Refrigerating Co. v. Nor- wich Union F. Ins. Soc, 91 Minn. 210; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 104 Mo. App. 502 ; Gros- venor v. Flint, 20 R. I. 21 ; Frankfurth v. Stein- meyer, 113 Wis. 200. 8. At Common Law Oath Not Essential. — Qardper v. Newman, 135 Ala. 522; Southern Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 113 Ga. 1088; Hassenpflug v. Rice, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 206, 11 Cine. L. Bui. 200, affirmed 45 Ohio St. 377. 4. Oath — Statutes — Louisiana. — Mestier v. A. Chevalier Pavement Co., 108 La. 562. 640. 1. Georgia. — Southern Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 113 Ga. 1088. Illinois. — Story v. De Armond, 179 111. 510. New York. — Under a common-law submis- sion the statute requiring an oath does not apply. Britton v. Hooper, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 388. Ohio. — Bradstreet v. Pross, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 154, 11 Cine. L. Bui. 117. 641. 1. Form of Oath. — The oath admin- istered must follow the statute. Sisson v. Pittman, 113 Ga. 166. 3. Rule as to Arbitrators Acting Together. — Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524; Christianson v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc, 84 Minn. 530, citing a Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 641. Though Majority Award Sufficient, All Must Consult. — British America Assur. Co. v. Dar- ragh, (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 890. 642. 1. Refusal After Submission. — The resignation of an arbitrator after the award has been returned does not affect the validity of it. Eisenberg v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 87 N. Y. Supp. 463. Where a. Majority Award Is Sufficient, Ftc. — Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337- 643. 6. Rule as to Arbitrators Joining in the Award. — United Kingdom Mut. Steamship Assur. Assoc, v. Houston, (1896) 1 Q. B. 567; Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337 ; Morgan v. Merchants Co-operative F. Ins. Assoc, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 61, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 643. 645. 2. Matters of Public Nature, — Repub- lic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337; Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 190 U. S. 524 ; Morgan v. Merchants Co-operative F. Ins. Assoc, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 61. Judges. — It is not necessary for all of the judges of the Chancery Court of Appeals to be present at the hearing of a case to render the judgment valid. Cowan v. Murch, 97 Tenn. 590, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 645. 8. Greenville County v. Spartanburg County, 3»9 647-659 ARBITRA TION AND A WARD. Vol. II. 647. /. Arbitrators Must Hear the Parties in Presence of EACH OTHER — (i) General Rule. — See note I. 650. g. Arbitrators Must Give Notice of the Hearing to Both Parties — (i) Generally — (a) Rule in the United states. — See notes 2, 3. 651. 653. 654. 655. (2) When Notice Is Not Required. (3) Waiver of Notice. Sufficiency of Notice. — See note 1 . -See note I. •See note 1. See note 1. h. The Arbitrators Must Hear All the Evidence — (1) General Rule. — See note 4. 658. 5. Powers of the Arbitrator in the Proceedings — a. ARBITRATOR Controls the Proceedings. — See note 2. 659. b. Power to Enforce the Attendance of Witnesses. — See note 2. c. Power to Administer Oath to Witnesses — At the common Law. — See notes 3, 4. Order Requiring Witnesses to Be Sworn. — See note 5. 62 S. Car. 105, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 645. Where Submission Allows Majority Award. — The submission providing that a majority de- cision shall be the unanimous decision, an award signed by two of the three arbitrators is sufficient. Witz v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351. 647. 1. Couch ■v. Harrison, 68 Ark. 580 ; Hewitt v. Reed City, 124 Mich. 8, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 646; Redner v. New York F. Ins. Co., 92 Minn. 306 ; Rand v. Peel, 74 Miss. 307, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 647; Snod- grass v. Morrison, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 158; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Moore, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 1 131 ; Brown v. Farnandis, 27 Wash. 236, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of LAW (2d ed.) 646 ; McDonald v. Lewis, 18 Wash. 300; Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200. An Sward is bad where one of the parties is absent by reason of representations made by the other party. Alexander v. Bank, 3 Lane. L. Rev. 354. Receiving Evidence in Absence of One or Both Parties. — In holding a private or ex parte meeting with one of the parties, an arbitrator is guilty of an act which is a sufficient ground for setting the award aside. Insurance Co. of ' North America v. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631. Umpire Hearing One Party in Absence of the Other Vitiates the Award. — Frederic v. Marg- warth, 200 Pa. St. 156. Representation by Attorney Refused — Award Valid. — Gardner v. Newman, 13s Ala. 522. 6S0. 2. Noble v. Grandin, 125 Mich. 383. 8. Necessity Of Notice. — Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589; Young v. Wells Glass Co., 187 111. 631, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 650; Mac- donaldl/. Bond, 195 111. 128; Noble v. Grandin, 125 Mich. 383; Stout v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 566 ; Slater v. La Grande Light, etc., Co., 43 Oregon 131 ; Snodgrass v. Morrison, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 158; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Moore, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 1131. Attorneys Present — Notice Unnecessary. — Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Buster (Miss >904) 36 So. Rep. t 4 6. 651. 1. Remington Paper Co. v. London Assur. Co., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 218; Slater v. La Grande Light, etc., Co., 43 Oregon 131. The Burden of Proof is on the party setting up a failure of notice. Kaiser v. Hamburg- Bremen F. Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 523. 653. 1. Vincent v. German Ins. Co., 120 Iowa 272. Appraisement of Property under Inspection. — Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589. 654. 1. Vincent v. German Ins. Co., 120 Iowa 2^2. 655. 1. Couch v. Harrison, 68 Ark. 580, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 655; Macdonald v. Bond, 96 111. App. 116. 4. Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589; In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279; Insurance Co. of North America u. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631 ; Christianson v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc, 84 Minn. 530, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 655 ; Redner v. New York F. Ins. Co., 92 Minn. 306 ; Stem- mer v. Scottish Union, etc., Ins. Co., 33 Oregon 74, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 655 ; McDonald v. Lewis, 18 Wash. 300 ; Van Winkle v. Continental F. Ins. Co., 55 W. Va. 286. 658. 2. Hearing Counsel. — It is within the sound discretion of the arbitrators to hear or refuse to hear counsel. Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. East St. Louis Ice, etc., Co., 96 Mo. App. 563. 659. 2. Bryant v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649. Refusal to Testify Before, Not Contempt. — Brandt v. Chester, etc., R. Co., 8 Pa. Dist. 583. 8. Bryant v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649 ; Has- senpflug v. Rice, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 206, 1 1 Cine. L. Bui. 200 ; Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 659. 4. Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 659. 5. Parties May Waive Oath. — In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279; Bryant v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649; O'Neill v. Clark, 57 Neb. 760; Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299. 320 Vol. II. ARBITRA TION AND AWARD. 660-687 660. Statutory Powers of Arbitrators. — See note 2. 661. d. Power to Admit or Reject Evidence — (2) The Rule in the United States. — See note 1 . (3) Arbitrator s Decision Is Final. — See note 2. /. Power to Adjourn the Hearing.— See. note 3. h. Waiver of Irregularities in the Proceedings. — See 665. 667. notes 3, 4 669. After an Award la Made and Satisfied. — See note I . 6. Authority of the Arbitrator — a. General Rule — (1) Source of Authority. — See note 2. (2) Must Not Exceed His Powers. — See note 3. 671. (3) May Determine Incidental Matters. — See note 1. 672. See note 1. b. Arbitrator Is Judge of Law and Fact — (1) General Rule. — See note 2. 674. Whether Arbitrator May Disregard Bules of Law. — See note 2. 676. (3) May Refer Question of Law to the Court. — See note 3. 681. c. Powers of the Arbitrator in Particular Matters — (5) Awards in Partnersliip Cases — Directing a Dissolution. — See note 1. Wide Discretion Vested in Arbitrator. — See note 3. 685. e. Authority over Strangers to the Submission — (i) Directing a Party to Do Act Towards Stranger. — See note 2. 687. /. Delegation of His Authority by the Arbitrator — (i) General Rule — May Not Delegate His Authority. — See note I. 660. 2. Provisions in United States. - — Ar- bitrators are empowered to administer oaths, but the parties may waive the swearing of wit- nesses. In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279. 661. 1. Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 661. 2. Caledonian R. Co. v. Turcan, (1898) A. C. B56; Waterman v. Merrow, 94 Me. 237; Stem- mer v. Scottish Union, etc., Ins. Co., 33 Oregon 74- 665. 3. Caldwell v. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Assoc, (Supm. Ct: Spec. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 510. 667. 3. Christenson v. Carleton, 69 Vt. 91. 4. United States. — Judson v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 637. Alabama. — Gardner v. Newman, 135 Ala. 522; Dunham Lumber Co. v. Holt, 123 Ala. 336. Georgia. — McMillan v. Allen, 98 Ga. 405. Illinois. — Seaton v. Kendall, 61 111. App. 289. Louisiana. — Bryant v~. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649. Massachusetts. — Farrell v. German-Ameri- can Ins. Co., 175 Mass. 340. Missouri. — Allen v. Hickam, 156 Mo. 58, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 667 ; Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. East St. Louis Ice, etc., Co., 96 Mo. App. 653. Nebraska. — O'Neill v. Clark, 57 Neb. 760; Burkland v. Johnson, 50 Neb. 858. New York. — Britton v. Hooper, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 388. South Carolina. — Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299. 669. 1. Judson v. V. S., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 637. 2. Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171. g, Mobile v. Wood, 95 Fed. Rep. 537, quoting I Supp, B. of \*<~%\ 3*» 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 669 ; In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279; Cullen v. Shipway, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 130; Jacob v. Weisser, 207 Pa. St. 484; McCord v. Flynn, m Wis. 78. 671. 1. Power Limited to the Precise Ques- tion Submitted. — Mobile v. Wood, 95 Fed. Rep. 537, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 671. 672. 1. Cannot Do General Justice. — Mobile v. Wood, 95 Fed. Rep. 537, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encycof Law (2d ed.) 672. 2.' Allen v. Hickam, 156 Mo. 58, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 672; Barnum v. Backman, 5 Luz. Leg. Reg. (Pa.) 145; School Dist. No. 5 v. Sage, 13 Wash. 352; McCord v. Flynn, m Wis. 78; Bartlett v. L. Bartlett, etc., Co., 116 Wis. 450. 674. 2. Authorities in the United States. — Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep- 337; In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279; May- berry v. Mayberry, 121 N. Car. 248; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. Car. 479; School Dist. No. 5 v. Sage, 13 Wash. 352; McCord v. Flynn, m Wis. 78. 676. 3, English Arbitration Act of 1889. — If the application for a special case is frivo- lous, it is proper for the arbitrator to deny it. An arbitrator cannot, after his award, state a case for the opinion of the court under this act, nor can the court order him so to do. In re Palmer, 77 L. T. N. S. 350. 6§1. 1. Awarding Dissolution of Partnership. — Vawdrey v. Simpson, (1896) 1 Ch. 166. 3. Wide Discretion. — Edmundson v. Wil- son, 108 Ala. 118. 685. 2. Turner v. Stewart, 51 W. Va. 493. 687. 1. Blakeston v. Wilson, 14 Manitoba 271. Award Based on Opinion of Stranger. — David, Harjey Qq. y, Barnefield, 22 $, I, 2^7, 687-715 ARBITRA TlON AND A WARD. Vol. II. 687. (2) May Take Opinion on Question of Fact. — See note 3. 693. 7. Power of the Arbitrator over the Costs — b. RULE IN THE UNITED STATES — (i) Generally — View that Arbitrator Has No Implied Power to Award Costs. — ■ See note 3. 696. 8. Duration of the Arbitrator's Authority— a. Where Time Limited by the Submission. — See note 4. 699. c. His Authority Is Ended by Making the Award — cannot Alter Award in Accordance with Changed Views. — See note I. 7©0. See note r. Cannot Correct Mistakes in Award. — See note 2. 7©2. 9. The Arbitrator's Right to Remuneration — a. Rule in England — Lien for Fees upon Award, Etc. — See note 3. 704. 10. The Arbitrator as a "Witness — a. General Rule — Cannot Be Compelled to Testify in Correction or Explanation of Award. — - See note 3. 706. Evidence Admissible to Sustain, but Not Generally to Impeach, Award. — See notes I, 2. b.' May Testify as to the Proceedings. — See note 5. 707. 11. Liability of the Arbitrator — a. Liability for Misconduct — Want of Skill or Negligence. — See note 3. 711. 12. The Umpire — a. Umpire and Third Arbitrator — An umpire. — See note 1. 714. b. Appointment of Umpire — (3) When Appointment May Be Made — Where the Submission Contains No Special Provision. — See note 3. 715. c. Powers and Duties of the Umpire — (1) General Rule — Must Use His Own Judgment. — See note 2. 6§7. 3. Taking Opinion on Question of Fact. — Though an arbitrator may lawfully take the opinion of a third person and adopt it as his own, yet if the conclusion which he adopts is not the result of any judgment or mental oper- ation of his own, but a mere yielding to a judg- ment of the others, his decision is not binding as an award, because the parties are entitled to receive his opinion and not the opinion of some one selected by him. David Harley Co. ■u. Barnefield, 22 R. I. 267. 693. 3. McLaughlin v. Old Colony R. Co., 166 Mass. 260. 696. 4. Where Time Within Which Award Is to Be Made Is Specified. — Anderson v. Mil- ler, 108 Ala. 171 ; Jordan v. Lobe, 34 Wash. 48, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 696. Day for Award Fixed in Submission. — See Eifert v. Wolf, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 6, holding that a short delay in returning the award, under a submission of a pending suit where the award was to be made the judgment of the court, was not sufficient grounds on which to reverse the judgment on the award. 699. 1. In re Stringer, (1901) 1 K. B. 105; Edmundson v. Wilson, 108 Ala. 118; Mand v. Patterson, 19 Ind. App. 619; Ezzell v. Rowland Lumber Co., 130 N. Car. 205, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. Of Law (2d ed.) 698 [699] ; Hartley v. Henderson, 189 Pa. St. 283, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 698, 699. 700. 1. Arbitrator Cannot Alter Award. — In re Stringer, (1901) 1 K. B. 105; Mand v. Patterson, 19 Ind. App. 619. 2. Errors in Award Cannot Be Corrected. — McCord v. Flynn, 1 1 1 Wis. 78. 702. 3, Several Cases Referred, Compensation in Each. — Evans v. Hart, 10 Lane. Bar (Pa.) 77- . 704. 3. The Oral Testimony of the Arbitrators. — Corrigan v. Rockefeller, 67 Ohio St. 354. 706. 1. Manson v. Wilcox, 140 Cal. 206; Story v. De Armond, 179 111. 510, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 705 [706J; Seaton v. Kendall, 171 111. 410; Corrigan v. Rockefeller, 67 Ohio St. 334; Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79 ; Van Winkle v. Continental F. Ins. Co., 55 W. Va. 286. 2. Fraud, Corruption, or Partiality. — Levine v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 66 Minn. 138. 5. Testimony as to Proceedings on Reference. — Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79- 707. 3. No liability for Want of Skill.— Chambers v. Goldthorpe, (1901) 1 K. B. 624. 711. 1. Whether Award Must Show that Arbitrators Could Not Agree. — In Manufactur- ers, etc., F. Ins. Co. v. Mullen, 48 Neb. 620, it was held that where the submission provided for two arbitrators by whom an umpire was to be chosen to act on matters of difference between the arbi- trators, but did not authorize one arbitrator and such umpire to make an award, an award signed by one arbitrator and the umpire was invalid where it did not show any difference between the two arbitrators. When the Arbitrators Agree in Part they should refer to the umpire only the points of difference between them, the terms of the Sub- mission so directing. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 49 W. Va. 379. 714. 3. Appointment Before Disagreement. — The appointment of the umpire before the arbi- trators have disagreed renders the proceeding void. Christenson v. Carleton, 69 Vt. 91. 715. 2. See Strome v. London Assflr, Vol. II. ARBITRA TION AND A WARD. 717-731 717. (2) Must Give Notice of Hearing. — See note 2. 719. (4) When Umpire's Authority Begins and Ends — Where No Time Is limited. — See note 1. 730. III. The Award — 2. Formal Requisites of Award — a. Award — How Made — (1) General Rule: Directions of Submission Must Be Followed. — See note 1. 733. Oral Award. — See note 3. 733. (3) Form of the Award. — See note 4. 734. See note 1. 735. (4) What Award Must, and Need Not, State — The Award Must Contain the Actual Decision. — See note 4. 730. Separate Award upon Different Items. — - See note 4. 737. Findings of Fact and of Law — Evidence. — See note I. (5) Waiver of Requirements of the Submission. — See note 3. b. PUBLICATION OF THE AWARD — Where the Submission So Requires. — See note 4. 738. What Constitutes Publication — As to Its Validity. — See note I. 730. c. DELIVERY OF THE AWARD — Delivery by Day Specified. — See note 2. 731. Delivery of Award in Duplicate. — See note 2. d. SIGNING THE AWARD — Where There Are Several Arbitrators. — See note 4. Signing on Day Other than That Agreed upon. — See note 5. Corp., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 571, holding that the umpire should consider the appraisements of the arbitrators in arriving at his decision. See also Schmitt v. Boston Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 234. 717. 2. Schmitt v. Boston Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 234 ; Slater v. La Grande Light, etc., Co., 43 Oregon 131; Coons v. Coons, 95 Va. 434, 64 Am. St. Rep. 804. 719. 1. Authority Does Not Begin until Dis- agreement. — Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524. 720. 1. Award Must Conform to Directions of Submission. — Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589; Jordan v. Lobe, 34 Wash. 48. 722. 3. Oral Award Where Neither Submis- sion Nor Statute Requires Writing. — Sisson v. Pittman, 113 Ga. 166; Mand v. Patterson, 19 Ind. App. 619. See also Heist v. Kohler, 10 Lane. L. Rev. 140. When Award Must Be in Writing. — If a writ- ing is necessary to pass title to the thing in con- troversy, an award disposing of such title to be valid must be in writing. Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 10 ; Wilmington Water Power Co. v. Evans, 166 111. 548. Oral Award as to Boundary Lines. — Miller v. Miller, 99 Va. 125, 30 Va. Sup. Ct. 34. 723. 4. No Particular Form of Words Neces- sary. — Kentucky Chair Co. v. Rochester Ger- man Ins. Co., (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 780; Masterson v. Masterson, 60 S. W. Rep. 301, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1103. 724. 1. The Arbitrator Need Not Recite His Authority. — Shaw v. Wise, 166 Mass. 433. Recital of Presence of Parties Not Necessary. — Macdonald v. Bond, 195 111. 128. Recital that Notice Was Given Unnecessary. — Hassenpflttg v. Rice, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 206, 11 Cine. L. Bui. 200. 725. 4. Award Must Contain the Decision, but Not the Grounds Therefor, — In re Connor, 128 Cal. 279; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. Car. 479; Mayberry v. Mayberry, 121 N. Car. 248; Graham v. Bates, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 465. 726. 4. Separate Award upon Different Items of Account. — Koerner v. Leathe, 149 Mo. 361; Groff v. Musser, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 262; Graham v. Bates, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 465. Under a General Submission of All Demands. — Patrick v. Batten, 123 Mich. 203; Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79. 727. 1. How Findings of Fact and Con- clusions of Law Should Be Stated. — O'Neill v. Clark, 57 Neb. 760. But a failure to state the findings separately only renders the award voidable and not void. Burkland v. Johnson, 50 Neb. 858. 3. Waiver of Requirements of Submission, — London, etc., F. Ins. Co. v. Storrs, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 120; Burkland v. Johnson, 50 Neb. 858 ; Remington Paper Co. v. London Assur. Corp., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 218. 4. Publication of Award — General Rule. — Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171. Parties Need Not Be Present. — -Wiley v. Heard, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 1203. 728. 1. What Constitutes Publication. — Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299. Arbitrators' Declaring Decision and Notifying Parties a Publication. — Mand v. Patterson, 1 9 Ind. App. 619. 730. 2. Requirement for Delivery by Day Specified. — Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171. Submission Strictly Followed in Delivery, — Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171. 731. 2. Delivery of Award in Duplicate. — See McMillan v. Allen, 98 Ga. 405. 4. Award Separately Signed. — It is immaterial that the arbitrators did not sign the award at the same time and place. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Buster, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 146. 5. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co, v. Buster, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 146, 323 731-750 ARBITRA TION AND A WARD. Vol. II 731. 733. e. Return of the Award into Court. — See note 6. 3. The Award Must Be Coextensive with Terms of Submission — a. Must Decide All Matters Submitted — (i) General Rule. — See note 2. Determination by Implication. — See note I . (3) Need Decide Only Matters Presented to the Arbitrators. — See 735. 736. note 3. note 6. 738. (4) Presumption that All Matters Submitted Are Decided. — See See note I. The Burden of Proof. — See note 3. b. Must Not Decide Matters Which Were Not Submitted — (1) General Rule. — See note 4. 740. (2) Presumption that Outside Matters Are Not Decided. — See note 3. 741. 4. An Award in Part Bad May Be Good in Part — a. GENERAL Rule. — See note 6. 742. Arbitrators Exceeding Their Authority. — See note 2. 746. b. When Not Separable — Award Void. — See note i. 750. 5. The Award Must Be Final — a. Meaning of Finality. — See note 1. 731. 6. Return of Award into Court— Stat- utes. — In order for the award to be a lien, or to have an execution upon it, it must be re- turned into court. Turner v. Stewart, 51 W. Va. 493, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 731. 732. 2. All the Matters Submitted Must Be Decided. — Continental Ins. Co. v. Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589; Fooks v. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) 115; Clark v. Goit, 1 Kan. App. 345 ; Hicks v. Magoun, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 573 ; American F. Ins. Co. v. Bell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 319. 735. 1. Award Good if Matters Decided by Necessary Implication. — Witz v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351 ; Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 735. 736. 3. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Newman, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 349. 6. Presumption in Favor of Award. — Fooks v. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) 115 ; Seaton v. Kendall, 61 111. App. 289; Witz v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351 ; Stemmer v. Scottish Union, etc., Ins. Co., 33 Oregon 74 ; Smith v. Clark, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 485 ; Jensen -u. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 736; McCord v. Flynn, 11 1 Wis. 78. 738. 1. Failure of Arbitrators to Decide All Matters Must Be Clearly Shown. — Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 738. 3. Burden of Proof. — Witz v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351- 4. Award Must I3e Confined to Matters Sub- mitted — ■ Alabama. — Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 17, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 738. New York. — Cullen v. Shipway, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 130. Oregon. — Parrish v. Higinbotham, 39 Ore- gon 6oo, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. Of Law (2d ed.) 738-741. Pennsylvania. *= Somerset ", Qtt, 207 Pa. St. 539 ; Holgate v. Chase, 7 Luz. Leg. Reg. (Pa.) 178. South Carolina. — Rounds v. Aiken Mfg. Co., 58 S. Car. 299. West Virginia. — Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 49 W. Va. 379. Wisconsin. — Bartlett v. L. Bartlett, etc., Co., 116 Wis. 450; Consolidated Water Power Co. v. Nash, 109 Wis. 490 ; Frankfurth v. Stein- meyer, 113 Wis. 200. 740. 3. Presumption that Extrinsic Matters Are Not Decided. — Falkingham v. Victorian Railways Com'r, (1900) A. C. 452; Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337; Seaton v. Kendall, 171 111. 410, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 740; Seaton v. Kendall, 61 111. App. 289 ; Stemmer v. Scottish Union, etc., Ins. Co., 33 Oregon 74, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 740 ; Greenville County v. Spartanburg County, 62 S. Car. 105; Fire Assoc, v. Colgin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 1004; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Colgin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 291. Want of Technical Precision in Language of Award. — Parrish v. Higinbotham, 39 Oregon 600. Matters Presented Decided Although Not in the Submission. — Huckestein v. Kaufman, 173 Pa. St. 199. 741. 6. When Good and Bad Parts of Award Separable, — Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337; Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 10; Corrigan v. Rockefeller, 1 o Ohio Dec. 494 ; Greenville County v. Spartanburg County, 62 S. Car. 105; Unterrainer v. Seelig, 13 S. Dak. 152; Graham v. Bates, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 465. 742. 2. Unterrainer v. Seelig, 13 S. Dak. 148. 746. 1. Good and Bad Parts Inseparable — Award Void in Toto. — Mobile v. Wood, 93 Fed. Rep. 537, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 746. 750:, ;, Ruje, th$t thf Awajd Must Be FjnaL ??4 Vol. II. ARBITRA TION AND A WARD. 751-774 791. See note i. b. Conditional Award. — See note 2. 755. g. Presumption as to Finality. — See note 1. 6. The Award Must Be Certain — a. General Rule — The Award Muet Be Certain to a Common Intent. — See note 2. 757. Must Show Questions Decided, and How Decided. — See notes 1,2. 758. b. Must Be Certain as to Sum Awarded — (i) General Rule. — See note 2. Where the Rule by Which Amount Is to Be Determined Is Stated. — See note 3. 762. e. Certainty as to Subject-matter — (3) Boundary Lines. — See note 2. 765. h. Award Made Certain by Extrinsic Aid. — See note 4. 766. /.'When Award Will Be Presumed Certain. — See note 2. 769. 8. The Award Must Be Mutual — c. United States Rule — Releases. — See note 2. 771. What Constitutes Mutuality. — See note I. 773. 10. How Far the Award Must Be Consistent and Beasonable — b. Reasonableness Cannot Be Inquired Into. — See note 3. 774. Excessive Award. — See note I. 11. Construction of Awards Generally — a. General Rule — Modern Bole — Awards Construed Liberally. — See notes 3, 4. — Hoit v. Berger- Oittenden Co., 81 Minn. 356, citing 2 Am. ANn Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 749, 755 ; Hicks v. Magoun, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 573; Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200. 751. 1. Arbitrators leaving Ministerial Acts Unperformed. — Parker v. Dorsey, 68 N. H. 181. 2. Eule as to Conditional Awards. — ■ Rawlinson v. Shaw, 124 Mich. 340. 755. 1. Rousseau v. Poitras, 62 111. App. 103; Hoit v. Berger-Crittenden Co., 81 Minn. 356, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 755- 2. Award Must Be Certain to Common Intent. — Goldin v. Beall, 107 Ga. 354; Poggenburg v. Conniff, 67 S. W. Rep. 845, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2463 ; Parker v. Dorsey, 68 N. H. 181 ; Hicks v. Magoun, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 573; Frankfurth v. Steinmeyer, 113 Wis. 200. Certainty to a Common Intent only is sufficient. Brown v. Mize, 119 Ala. 10. Rule as to Certainty Required Same as in Con- tracts. — Mather v. Day, 106 Mich. 371. Awards Objected to for Uncertainty, but Sus- tained. — Seaton v. Kendall, 61 111. App. 289. 757. 1. Cases Wherein Award Held Void for Uncertainty. — Georges v. Niess, 70 Minn. 250 ; Hicks v. Magoun, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 573. 2. Determination Certain. — Hoit v. Berger- Crittenden Co., 81 Minn. 356. 75§. 2. Poggenburg v. Conniff, 67 S. W. Rep. 845, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2463. 3. Indicating Rule or Principle of Calculation Sufficient. — Witz v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351. 762. 2. Certainty as to Boundary Lines. — Hayden v. Brown, 33 Oregon 221. 765. 4. Jensen v. Deep Creek Farm, etc., Co., 27 Utah 79. 766. 2. When Award Presumed Certain. — Poggenburg v. Conniff, 67 S. W. Rep. 845, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2463, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 766 ; Caldwell v. Brooks Elevator Co., 10 N. Dak. 575, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 766. 769. 2. Mutuality in Awards — Rule in United States. — Continental Ins. Co. u . Garrett, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 589. 771. 1. Turner v. Stewart, 51 W. Va. 493. 773. 3. Rule as to Inquiry by Courts into Question of Reasonableness. — Board of Educa- tion v. Frank, 64 111. App. 367 ; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Payne, 57 Kan. 291 ; Strome v. London Assur. Corp., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 571. 774. 1. Excessive Awards. — Republic of Co- lombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 337 ; In- surance Co. of North America v. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631; Hewitt v. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 511 ; Ezzell ■. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 208. 852. 1. Chandler v. Rutherford, (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 774; Johnson v. Williams, in Ky. 289, 98 Am. St. Rep. 416 ; State v. Stan- cill, 128 N. Car. 606; Hardin v. State, 40 Tex. Crim, 208. 2. State v. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St. Rep. 845, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 852. 3. Force Lawful to Escape Unlawful Arrest. — John Bad Elk v. U. S., 177 U. S. 529; Frank- lin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860; Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294; State v. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St. Rep. 845, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 852 ; Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5. See also infra, this title, 909. 1. et seq. §53. 1. Civil Cases — Breaking Outer Doors. — Foley v. Martin, 142 Cal. 256, 100 Am. St. Rep. 123. 4. To Whom the Privilege Extends. — State v. Albright, 144 Mo. 645. §55. 6. Misdemeanor on View. — In arrest- ing for a misdemeanor on view without a war- rant an officer may enter without invitation or consent the outer door of a dwelling that stands open. Ford v. Breen, 173 Mass. 52. 8. Misdemeanor. — An officer has no right to break open outer doors in executing a war- rant of arrest for a mere misdemeanor. Com. v. Superintendent of County Prison, 5 Pa. Dist. 6JS- On Mere Suspicion of Misdemeanor an of- ficer may not enter a dwelling house either peaceably or forcibly. People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1. An Officer May Not Lawfully Burn a House to arrest a criminal with more ease and safety, and for such burning he is personally liable. Goodman v. Condo, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 456. Attempt to Make Illegal Arrest. — Where the attempt to arrest is illegal the accused has a right to protect his door and his residence even to the extent of taking life. Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671. §59. 2. Officer Summoning Bystanders to As- sist Him. — North Carolina v. Gosnell, 74 Fed. Rep. 734; People v. Brooks, 131 Cal. 311; Petit v. Colmery, 4 Perm. (Del.) 266 ; State v. Phillips, (Iowa 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 1092; State v. Rose, 142 Mo. 418; State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51. See also infra, this title, 890. 1, 2. An Officer Is Not Bound to Ask Assistance of bystanders before he uses force to accomplish his purpose alone. It is not the law that all other means be resorted to before using force to make the arrest. Gillespie v. State, 69 Ark. 573- Aid from Adjoining County Officers. — Officers may call to their aid officers from an adjoining county. State v. Morgan, 22 Utah 162. 3. Duty and Liability of Person Assisting. — North Carolina v. Gosnell, 74 Fed. Rep. 734 ; People v. Brooks, 131 Cal. 311; State v. Gay, 18 Mont, si ; State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. Killing of One Called to Assist an Officer. — Where one is called on by an officer to assist him to make an arrest, and is killed by the accused, the killing amounts to murder. Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70. §60. 1. Refusal to Assist Indictable. — North Carolina v. Gosnell, 74 Fed. Rep. 734 ; People v. Hochstim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562. 2. Taking Articles from Person for Purposes of Evidence. — Hubbard v. Garner, 115 Mich. 407, 69 Am. St. Rep. 58od, citing 2 Am. and Eng, Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860. 3. Taking Money from Prisoner. — State v. Clausmeier, 154 Ind. 599; Hubbard v. Garner, 115 Mich. 407, 69 Am. St. Rep. sSod, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 860 ; State v. Burns, 27 Nev. 289. §61. 2. Stopping Train to Execute Process. — An officer of the law has a right to stop a train to execute process on a passenger thereon, or to make a lawful arrest. Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Ponder, 117 Ga. 63, 97 Am. St. Rep. 152. 3. Arrest May Be Made by Day or Night. — Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70 ; Petit v. Colmery, 4 Penn. (Del.) 266. Vacation. — An arrest of one against whom an indictment is found may be made during 335 862-869 ARREST. Vol. II. 863. note 4. 863. 865. 866. 868. 869. See notes 2, 3. 8. Where Process Must Be Executed — independent of statute. - See note 1. 11. Execution by Officer de Facto. — See note 1. 12. Execution by Special Bailiff or Deputy. — See note 3. 13. Disposition of Prisoner. — See note 1. 14. Return of Process. — See note 1 . 16. Authority Cannot Be Delegated. — See note 6. V Arrest Without Warrant — 1. In General. — See note 3. See the vacation of the court before which the warrant is returnable. Kent v. Miles, 69 Vt. 379- 862. 2. Arrest on Sunday — American Rule. — Parish v. State, 130 Ala. 92. Selling liquor. — In Pennsylvania a warrant of arrest for selling liquor on Sunday cannot be served on that day, unless it alleges a breach of the peace. Com. v. De Puyter, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 589- 3. Valentine v. Roberts, 1 Alaska 536. 4. No Authority Beyond Jurisdiction. — In re Baum, 61 Kan. 117; Newburn v. Durham, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 655 ; Ex p. Sykes, (Tex. Crim. 1904), 79 S. W. Rep. 538. Provision Is Usually Made by Statute. — In Iowa, where the offense is committed within five hundred yards of the boundary of two counties the jurisdiction is concurrent, and an officer of either county is authorized to make an arrest. State v. Seery, 95 Iowa 652. Effect on Jurisdiction of Court. — In Kansas a person illegally arrested in another county has a civil remedy for the trespass, but it does not divest the court into which he is brought of its -jurisdiction to try him for a. crime. State v. May, 57 Kan. 428. 863. 1. Officer Has No Authority Out of His Precinct. — State v. Weston, 98 Iowa 125 ; Card- well v. Com., (Ky. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 705- Kentucky. — A town marshal in Kentucky has authority to arrest, without a warrant, for offenses in his presence, outside the limits of the town for which he is appointed, and his jurisdiction is coextensive with the county. Helm v. Com., 81 S. W. Rep. 270, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 165. North Carolina. — In North Carolina a po- liceman may not pursue an escaping prisoner beyond the limits of the town. The authority to arrest being confined to the town limits, the authority to pursue is encompassed with the same restriction. Sossamon v. Cruse, 133 N. Car. 470. 865. 1. Officer de facto. — People v. Pay-, ment, 109 Mich. 553. 3. Bailiff or Beputy. — Parish v. State, 130 Ala. 92; Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70. A Warrant Addressed to a Private Person Is Good, though it is better practice to address it to a regular constable or officer. Com. v. Baird, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 488. 866. 1. Prisoner to Be Taken Before Magis- trate Within a Reasonable Time. — Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212; Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286; Stewart v. Feeley, 118 Iowa 524; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715; Brish v. Carter, 98 Md,, 445; Ljnpen v. B s anfie]d, 114 Mich. 93; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598; Snead v. Bonnoil, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 330; Tobin v. Bell, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 41 ; Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 78 Am. St. Rep. 738 ; Mulberry v . Fuellhart, 203 Pa. St. 573 ; Richardson v. Dybedahl, 14 S. Dak. 126; In re Jennison, 74 Vt. 40. Probable Cause for Arrest. — Gamier v. Squires, 62 Kan. 321. On Arrest Without Warrant. — Kirk v. Gar- rett, 84 Md. 383- Arrest in Vacation. — An officer making an arrest under warrant in vacation may hold the prisoner until the next session opens. Kent v. Miles, 69 Vt. 379. 868. 1. Officer Must Make Return. — State V. Aucoin, in La. 51. 6. Officer Cannot Delegate Authority to Private Person. — Mann v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 438. 869. 3. Warrant Generally Necessary — Ex- ceptions. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87 ; State v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 278, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 869 ; Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 80, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 869. It is not sufficient that the offense was com- mitted in the presence of an officer other than the one making the arrest. Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 228, citing z Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 869. An. officer may not without a warrant make an arrest for doing business without a license unless the offense was committed in his pres- ence, and a city ordinance authorizing such an arrest is void. Gambill v. Schmuck, 131 Ala. 321. Hearsay. — There can be no arrest without .l warrant on mere suspicion or hearsay in case of misdemeanor. People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1. Montana Statute. — " An officer having author- ity to make arrests shall arrest a person, with- out a warrant: (1) When a person is at- tempting or has committed a public offense ; (2) When a felony in fact has been committed and he has reasonable grounds for believing the person arrested has committed the same ; (3) Where he has reasonable grounds to be- lieve that a person 'has committed an offense, and that he can escape before he can be ar- rested by a warrant issued by some proper officer." State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51. Contempt. — For authority to arrest for con- tempt of court in the judge's presence, see State v. Peterson, 29 Wash, 571, and. s?? tt^ title Contempt, 33$ Vol. II. ARREST. 870-872 87©. 2. By Peace Officers — a. On Suspicion of Felony of Officer's Own Knowledge. — See note i. 872. Must Act with Discretion. — See note I. 870. 1. Authorities in the United States — United States. — Chandler v. Rutherford, (C. C. A.) ioi Fed. Rep. 774. California. — People v. Matthews, 126 Cal. xvii, 58 Pac. Rep. 371. District of Columbia. — Davis v. U. S., 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 442. Florida. — Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 228. Georgia. — Brooks v. State, 114 Ga. 6. Illinois. — McMahon v. People, 189 111. 222; Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Gehr, 66 111. App. 173; Lynn v. People, 170 111. 527. Indiana. — Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286. Iowa. — State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660. Kansas. — Gamier v. Squires, 62 Kan. 321. Kentucky. — Petrie v. Cartwright, 114 Ky. 103, 102 Am. St. Rep. 274; Lindle v. Cora., m Ky. 866; Mann v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 438. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Maryland. — Brish v. Carter, 98 Md. 445 ; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715. Massachusetts. — Jackson v. Knbwlton, 173 Mass 94 letting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 870] ; Com. v. Hughes, 183 Mass. 221. Michigan. — Friesenhan v. Maines, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 172; Tillman v. Beard, 121 Mich. 475. 'Minnesota. — State v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 278. Missouri. — State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 84 Am. St. Rep. 669, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 870 ; State v. Albright, 144 Mo. 645; State v. Dierker, 101 Mo. App. 636; State v. Evans, 83 Mo. App. 301. Nebraska. — Kyner v. Laubner, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 491; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598. New York. — Craven v. Bloomingdale, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 266 ; Grinnell v. Weston, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 454; People v. Hochstim, (Suptn. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562; People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1 ; Snead v. Bonnoil, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 330 ; Westbrook v. New York Sun Assoc, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 562 ; People v. Hochstim, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 25; Snead v. Bonnoil, 166 N. Y. 325- Ohio. — Burch v. Franklin, 7 Ohio Dec. 519. Pennsylvania. — Rarick v. McManomon, 1 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 154. South Carolina. — State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297. Texas. — Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Maddox v. Hudgeons, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 291 ; Cortez v. State, 43' Tex. Crim. 375, 44 Tex. Crim. 169. Vermont. — State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149; State v. Taylor, 70 Vt. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 648. Washington. — State v. Symes, 20 Wash. 484. Wisconsin. — Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 78 ; Lamb v. Stone, 95 Wis. 2S4 ; Bergeron v. Pey- ton, 106 Wis. 377, 80 Am. St. Rep. 33. Probable Cause in malicious Prosecution as Test pf Suspicion. — Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, I Supp. E, of L. — 22- 337 quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 871, note. Seasonable Grounds and Probable Cause Defined. — Such a case must be presented as would induce a discreet, prudent, sober, sensible per- son to act upon it. Fry v. Kaessner, 48 Neb. 133- Arrest under Void Warrant. — It has been held that where an officer arrests under a warrant from another county, not signed by a magistrate in his own county, and therefore void, the arrest may be treated as a valid ar- rest without a warrant, where the void war- rant shows that the complaint had been made on reasonable grounds. Ex p. Smotherman, 140 Ala. 168. But see to contrary effect Elwell v. Reynolds, 6 Kan. App. 545. A Railroad Policeman Is Not a Peace Officer unless he has taken the oath of office under the acts relating to special policemen. Mis- souri, etc., R. Co. v. Warner, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 463. Mere Suspicion. — An officer is not justified in making an arrest on the mere suspicion of a third party, and an officer so making an arrest is liable for false arrest. Karner v. Stump, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 460. Ignorance of Law on Part of Officer. — The of- ficer is not justified by the fact that he thought the crime committed was in law a felony, when in fact it was a misdemeanor. Begley v. Com., 60 S. W. Rep. 847, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1546. 872. 1. Officer Must Use Diligence to Avoid Mistakes. — Chandler v. Rutherford, (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 774; Wells v. Johnston, 52 La. Ann. 713. Rule of Conduct for Officer Acting Without War- rant. — An officer acting without a warrant must first state his official character and the reason for making the arrest, unless the per- son about to be arrested is in the actual com- mission of the offense or in actual flight at the time thereof. State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51; State v. Appleton, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 445- When Notice Not Necessary. — No notice of the officer's intent to arrest is necessary to be given when the party is actually engaged in resistance or in flight. State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660. Amount of Force Permissible. — An officer ar- resting without warrant on suspicion of felony is authorized to use such force only as is al- lowable in other cases not felonious, unless the offense was in fact a felony. If he uses greater force, he does so at his peril, and is liable if it turns out that he was mistaken. Petrie v. Cartwright, 114 Ky. 103, 102 Am. St. Rep. 274. Purpose of Officer. — Although a larceny was committed and the right to arrest for the pur- pose of taking the prisoner before a magistrate according to, law existed, the officer is liable where he makes the arrest for the sole pur- pose of forcing the accused to return the stolen money. Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377, 8p Am. St. Rep. 33. 873 873 ARREST? Vol. II. 873. Crime Must Be Felony. — See note 2. Recapture. — See note 3. b On Information of Third Persons. — See note 4. 873. c. For Affrays and Other Offenses in Officer's Presence - Common-law Power to Arrest for Breach of Peace. — See note I. 872. 2. Rule Applies to Felony Only. — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860; State v. Al- bright, 144 Mo. 645 ; People!'. Hochstim, (Supra. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562 ; Westbrook v. New York Sun Assoc, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 562; Burch v. Franklin, 7 Ohio Dec. 519; Ra- rick v. McManomon, 17 Pa. Super Ct. 154; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91. Rule Does Not Apply to Mere Threat to Commit Felony. — Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671. Arrest of One Charged with Felony, but Guilty of Misdemeanor. — Where an arrest was made for a felony and the accused was, unknown to the officers at the time of the arrest, guilty of a misdemeanor by having a concealed weapon, the officer cannot justify the illegal arrest, there having been no felony or reason- able ground of suspicion, on the ground that the prisoner, while innocent of a felony, was actually guilty of a misdemeanor. Snead v. Bonnoil, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 330. 8. Recapture. — McQueen v. State, 130 Ala. 136; State v. Craft, 164 Mo. 631; State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. So the Retaking of One Unlawfully Released from Jail may be accomplished without a war- rant, either by an officer or by a private person. In re Troy, 67 Kan. 186. No Distinction Between Felony and Misdemeanor in Recapture. — Where a convict has escaped it is immaterial whether he was convicted of misdemeanor or of felony ; the same rule of recapture without a warrant applies in both cases. Williford v. State, 121 Ga. 173. Ten Years After the Escape of a convict the superintendent of convicts cannot make an ar- rest of the convict without a warrant. State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606. 4. On Information of Third Persons — Alabama. — Gambill u. Schmuck, 131 Ala. 321. Illinois. — Lynn v. People, 170 111. 527. Indiana. — Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286. Louisiana. — Lyons u. Carroll, 107 La. 47i. Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87 ; Brish v. Carter, 98 Md. 445 ; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715; Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383. Missouri. — State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 84 Am, St. Rep. 669. Nebraska. — -Fry v. Kaessner, 48 Neb. 133; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598. Oregon. — State v. Williams, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 965. Pennsylvania. — Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452 ; Rarick v. McManomon, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 155. South Carolina. — State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297. Texas. — Montgomery v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 304; Newburn v. Durham, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 655 ; Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5 ; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91. Vermont. — State v. Taylor, 70 Vt. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 648 ; Claiborne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 46 W. Va. 363. Liability of Person Making Charge — United States. — Bryan v. Condon, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 221. California. — Miller v. Fano, 134 Cal. 103. Kansas. — Wichita, etc., R. Co. v. Quinn, 57 Kan. 737. Louisiana. — Lyons v. Carroll, 5 1 La. Ann. 1542- Missouri. — Thompson v. Bucholz, 107 Mo. App. 121. New York. — ■ Grinnell v. Weston, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 454 ; Midford v. Kann, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 228 ; McMorris v. Howell, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 272 ; Whitney v. Hanse, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 420 ; Limbeck v. Gerry, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 663. North Carolina. — Bryan v. Stewart, 123 N. Car. 92. Pennsylvania. — Burk v. Howley, 179 Pa. St. 539, 57 Am. St. Rep. 607 ; Buchanan v. Goettmann, 29 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 302. South Carolina. — Whaley v. Lawton, 62 S. Car. 91. Compare Easton v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 996. Charge of Accomplice. — A bare and uncor- roborated statement by one confessing himself guilty of a felony, without any facts or cir- cumstances affording reasonable ground for sus- picion, is not sufficient to justify an officer in making an arrest of another on the charge that he was also a principal. Wills v. Jordan, 20 R. I. 630. Liability of Officer. — If the officer acts on in- sufficient information he does so at his peril. State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660. Mere Suspicion does not justify an officer in arresting on information of third persons, and the person who so procures the arrest is liable. Karner -v. Stump, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 460. The arrest must be on information of a third person based on some knowledge of facts. Wells v. Johnston, 52 La. Ann. 713. What Amounts to a Request to Arrest. — - The mere fact that a citizen has called upon an officer to search for and recover his lost or stolen prop- erty will not justify the inference that he " requested or directed " the arrest subse- quently made. Joske v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574. On Offer of Reward. — A publication by a pri- vate person in a newspaper of an offer of a reward for the arrest of one whom he accuses of a crime is not of itself reasonable or sufficient ground to justify an arrest by an officer with- out a warrant. State v. Evans, 83 Mo. App. 301. 873. 1. Right to Arrest for Breach of Peace — Alabama. — Jones v. Anniston, 138 Ala. 199. Delaware. — State v. Dennis, 2 Marv. (Del.) 433- Florida. — Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 228, 333 Vol. II. ARREST. 875 875. Statutory Power to Arrest for Other Offenses. — See note I. citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 873 ; Roberson v. State, 43 Fla. 156. Georgia. — Brooks v. State, 114 Ga. 6. Illinois. — Lynn v. People, 170 111. 527; McMahon v. People, 189 111. 222. Indiana. — Weser v. Welty, 18 Ind. App. 664; Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286. Iowa. — Stewart v. Feeley, 118 Iowa 524. Kentucky. — Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294; Lynam v. Com., (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 686 ; Easton v. Com., (Ky. 1904-) 82 S. W. Rep. 996. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87. Massachusetts. — Ford v. Breen, 173 Mass. 52. Michigan. — Tillman v. Beard, 121 Mich. 475- Minnesota. — State v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 278, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 873. New York. — People v. Hochstim, 76 N. Y. App Div. 25 ; People v. Howard, (Ct. Spec. Sess.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 763; Snead v. Bonnoil, 166 N. Y. 325. Oregon. — State v. Williams, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 965. Pennsylvania. — Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452. South Carolina. — Percival v. Bailey, 70 S. Car. 72. Texas'. — Montgomery v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 304 ; Sierra v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 430. Assault Committed on Officer. — A police officer who is assaulted while trying to preserve the peace can make an arrest without a warrant for the assault committed on himself. Riggs ■v. Com., (Ky. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 413. Burden of Proof on Officer. — When the legal- ity of the arrest is questioned the burden of proof is on the officer ; and the officer also has the burden of proof to show reasonable grounds in all cases. McCaffrey v. Thomas, 4 Penn. (Del.) 437 ; Marshall v. Cleaver, 4 Penn. (Del.) 450; White v. State, 99 Ga. 16; Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715; Com. v. Hughes, 183 Mass. 221 ; Jackson v. Knowlton, 173 Mass. 97. By Deputy Not Properly Appointed. — As the law gives this authority to peace officers, it is necessary, in order to justify an arrest by a deputy, to show his proper authority and ap- pointment. Buckles v. Com., 113 Ky. 795. Presumption. — Where there is no statement whether the arrest was with or without a war- rant, the presumption is that a public officer did his duty and that he either had a warrant or that there was a criminal offense committed in his presence. Davis v. Pacific Telephone, etc., Co., 127 Cal. 317. Card Flaying. — Card playing is not an of- fense for which an arrest is authorized with- out a warrant, for the authority to arrest with- out a warrant is limited to felonies and breaches of the peace committed in the view of the officer. Lee v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 28. Counterfeiting. — A government secret ser- vice agent has a right to arrest without a war- rant where he finds one secreting counterfeit coin to prevent the detection and conviction of a counterfeiter for whom he has a warrant. U. S. v. Fuellhart, 106 Fed. Rep. 911. Who Are Peace Officers. — Justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, constables, watchmen, and all who come to their aid and assistance are peace officers, and a policeman is by stat- ute equivalent to a watchman. McDuffie v. State, 121 Ga. 580; State v. Seery, 95 Iowa 632 ; Helm v. Com., 81 S. W. Rep. 230, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 165; State v. Evans, 161 ;Mo. 95, 84 Am. St. Rep. 669; State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606; Sossamon v. Cruse, 133 N. Car. 470; Newburn v. Durham, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 655; Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Claiborne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 46 W. Va'. 363. Railway conductors are peace officers by stat- ute in South Carolina. Loggins v. Southern R. Co., 64 S. Car. 321. And in New Hampshire " railroad police of- ficers " are clothed with the powers of peace officers. Cordner v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 413. In Texas a magistrate is a judicial officer, and not a peace officer. Morawietz v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 997. 875. 1. Bight under Statute to Arrest With- out Warrant — England. — See Rex v. Sherriff, 20 Cox C. C. 334. United Stales. — Chandler v. Rutherford, (C. C. A.) 1 01 Fed. Rep. 774; U. S. v. Fuellhart, 106 Fed. Rep. 911. Alabama. — Gambill v. Schmuck, 131 Ala. 321 ; Jones v. Anniston, 138 Ala. 199. Delaware. — State v. Dennis, 2 Marv. (Del.) 433 ; Marshall v. Cleaver, 4 Penn. (Del.) 450 ; McCaffrey v. Thomas, 4 Penn. (Del.) 437. Florida. — Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 223. Georgia. — Willif ord v. State, 121 Ga. 173; Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860; Brooks v. State, 114 Ga. 6. Illinois. — Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212; Quinlan v. Badenoch, 78 111. App. 481; Wice v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 93 111. App. 266 ; Lynn v. People, 170 111. 527. Indiana. — Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286; Weser v. Welty, 18 Ind. App. 664. Kentucky. — Easton v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 996; Petrie v. Cartwright, 114 Ky. 103, 102 Am. St. Rep. 274; Helm v. Com., 81 S. W. Rep. 270, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 165; Begley v. Com., 60 S. W. Rep. 847, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1546; Hendrickson v. Com., 81 S. W. Rep. 266, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 224; Mann v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rap. 438. Massachusetts. — Com. v. Tay, 170 Mass. 192; Ford v. Breen, 173 Mass. 52. Minnesota. — State v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 278. Missouri. — Bierwith v. Pieronnet, 65 Mo. App. 431; State v. Hancock, 73 Mo. App. 19. Nebraska. — Fry v. Kaessner, 48 Neb. 133. New Hampshire. — Cordner v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 413- New York. — People v. Hochstim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562; People v. Van Houten, (Ct. Spec. Sess.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 603 ; Grinnell v. Weston, 95 N. Y. App. Djv. 454. 339 877-879 ARREST. Vol. II. 877. Time When Arrest Must Be Made. — See note I. 878. See note i. Arrest for Threatened Breach of Peace. — See note 2. 879. Power to Arrest in Case of Misdemeanor. — See notes I, 2. Ohio. — Billington v. Hoverman, ^ Ohio Cir. Dec. 358. Oregon. — State v. Williams, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 965. Pennsylvania. — Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452. South Carolina. — Loggins v. Southern R. Co., 64 St Car. 321. South Dakota. — Richardson v. Dybedahl, 14 S. Dak. 126. Texas. — Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Montgomery v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 304 ; Griffin v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 319; Lee v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 28 ; Cortez v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 375, 44 Tex. Crim. 169; Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Warner, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 463 ; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91. Vermont. — State v. Doherty, 72 Vt. 381, 82 Am. St. Rep. 951. Wisconsin. — State v. Newman, 96 Wis. 258. Municipal Ordinances. — Where a borough or- dinance provides that peddlers shall procure a license, and that any person found violating the ordinance shall be arrested with or without a warrant, an arrest made without a warrant and not on view is illegal. Plymouth v. Williams, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 167. The fact that an ordinance is subsequently held to be unconstitutional and void does not render the officer who made an arrest under it liable in damages. Tillman v. Beard, 121 Mich. 475- . . Concealed Weapons. — In some states it is held that an officer may not arrest, either on his own knowledge or on information, without a -warrant, on the bare charge of carrying con- cealed weapons, unless there is an actual or threatened breach of the peace. Roberson v. State, 43 Fla. 156; Pickett v. State, 99 Ga. 12, 59 Am. St. Rep. 226 ; Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294. Compare Jones v. Anniston, 138 Ala. 199 ; State v. Laudano, 74 Conn. 638; Montgomery v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 304 ; Manger v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 145 ; Claiborne v. Cresapeake, etc., R. Co., 46 W. Va. 363. Construction of Statute. — The Texas stat- ute giving to a peace officer authority to arrest a person where he knows that person to have concealed weapons does not authorize a magis- trate to require the peace officer to arrest a person known to the magistrate, but not to the peace officer, to have concealed weapons. Mora- wietz v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 997- "In the Presence Of," in the statutes, means in the sight of, or requires that the act be done in such a manner that the officer can detect it by sight or hearing as the act of the accused. It does not apply to a case where he cannot de- tect the act, but has merely a suspicion. Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294. Military Offenses. — The right conferred by the statutes applies to breaches of the civil law and not to those against military regulations. Kendall v. Scheve, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 303- Miscellaneous Grounds of Arrest. — For cases upholding the right of an officer to arrest with- out a warrant for various violations of stat- utes in the officer's presence, see Gillespie v. State, 69 Ark. 573 (being drunk, swearing, and making threats) ; White v. State, 99 Ga. 16 (disturbing military parade) ; State v. Apple- ton, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 44s (using vile epithets and cursing) ; Quinn v. Com., 63 S. W. Rep. 792, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1302 (selling beer without a license) ; Com. v. Robinson, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 319 (being drunk and dis- orderly) ; State v. Boyd, 108 Mo. App. 518 (right to arrest inmates and habitues of bawdy house) ; Reynolds v. Board of Education, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 88 (truancy) ; Jones v. Foster, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 33 (peddling without li- cense) ; People v. Angie, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 539 (child frequenting wine room or saloon) ; People v. Hochstim, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 25, (voting or attempting to vote illegally) ; State v. Pate, s Ohio Dec. 732, 7 Ohio N. P. 543 (right to arrest tramp carrying firearms) ; Lamb v. Stone, 95 Wis. 254 (shooting game at night) ; Hawkins v. Lutton, 95 Wis. 492, 60 Am. St. Rep. 131 (right to enter disorderly houses and arrest without warrant where disturbance audible outside). 877. 1. Interval of Time After Commission of Offense. — Marshall v. Cleaver, 4 Penn. (Del.) 450 ; Fuller v. Redding, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 634; Percival ■u. Bailey, 70 S. Car. 72. In Com. v. Cosier, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 97, it was held that a policeman may arrest without a warrant for a breach of the peace where he is present or where it is evident that a breach was committed immediately before his presence. But in Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 80, thirty minutes was held to be too great a lapse of time. 878. 1. Arrest upon Fresh Pursuit. — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860; Marshall v. Cleaver, 4 Penn. (Del.) 450; Com. v. Grether, 204 Pa. St. 203 ; Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452. 2. Officer May Prevent Breach of Peace.— Riggs v. Com., (Ky. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 413; State v. Boyd, 108 Mo. App. 518; San Antonio, etc., R.- Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91 ; Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Claiborne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 46 W. Va. 363. 879. 1. Must Be in Officer's Presence — United States. — John Bad Elk v. U. S., 177 U. S. 529; Chandler v. Rutherford, (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 774. Alabama. — Gambill v. 321. California. — People v. xvii, 58 Pac. Rep. 371." Delaware. ■ — Marshall v. Cleaver, 4 (Del.) 450 ; McCaffrey v. Thomas, 4 Penn. (Del.) 437- Florida. — Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 228. Georgia. — Franklin v. Amerson, n8 Ga. Schmuck, 131 Ala. Matthews, 126 Cal. Penn. 34o Vol. II. ARREST. 879-88« 879. d. For Past Offenses. — See note 3. 880. See notes 1, 2, 3. e. Disposition of Person Arrested Without Warrant. — See note 4. 882. g. Of Night Walkers and Suspicious Characters. — See notes 1, 2. 860; Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 163; Brooks v. State, 114 Ga. 6 ; Williford v. State, 121 Ga. 173. Illinois. — Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212. Indiana. — Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286. Kansas. — State v. Appleton, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 445 ; State v. Dietz, 59 Kan. 576. Kentucky. — Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Minnesota. — State v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 277. Missouri. — State v. Dierker, 101 Mo. App. 636. New Hampshire. — Cordner v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 413. New York. — People v. Hochstim, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 25 ; Craven v. Bloomingdale, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 266; People v. Hochstim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562; People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1 ; McMorris v. Howell, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 272 ; Westbrook v. New York Sun Assoc, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 562 ; People v. Howard, (Ct. Spec. Sess.) 13 Misc. (N. Y.) 763 ; Fuller v. Redding, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) ^34- Oregon. — State v. Williams, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 965. Pennsylvania. — Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452; Rarick v. McManomon, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 154. South Carolina. — Percival v. Bailey, 70 S. Car. 72 ; Loggins v. Southern R. Co., 64 S. Car. 321. Texas. — Montgomery v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 304; Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5. Wisconsin. — Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 80 ; State v. Newman, 96 Wis. 258 ; Hawkins v. Lutton, 95 Wis. 492, 60 Am. St. Rep. 131; Lamb v. Stone, 95 Wis. 254. Missouri Statute. — In Missouri police, state, and city officers are empowered by statute to make arrests without warrants, for past offenses or past misdemeanors not committed in their presence. State v. Boyd, 108 Mo. App. 518; State v. Hancock, 73 Mo. App. 19. §79. 2. There Must Be a Breach of the Peace. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. See also Com. v. Krubeck, 8 Pa. Dist. 521. But see, under stat- ute in Oregon, State v. Williams, (Oregon 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 965. Legislature May Change Rule. — Hughes v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 294. 3. Past Offenses, — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860 ; Cordner v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 413; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 13 N. Y. App. Div. 328 ; Griffin v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 319; Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5. By Statute in Missouri the rule is otherwise. State v. Hancock, 73 Mo. App. 19 ; State u. Boyd, 108 Mo. App. si 8. 880. 1. Arrest Within Reasonable Time. — Fuller v. Redding, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 634. 2. Danger of Death. — State -11. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. 3. No Power to Arrest on Suspicion of Misde- meanor. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513; Griffin v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 319. 4. No Warrant After Arrest Is Necessary. — When the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant it is unnecessary to issue a warrant. People v. Mulkins, (County Ct.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 599; Jones v. Anniston, 138 Ala. 199. Com- pare Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 78 Am. St. Rep. 738. By Statute authority is sometimes given to make arrests and retain custody of the prisoner " until a warrant can be obtained." Weser -u. Welty, 18 Ind. App. 664; Harness v. Steele, 159 Ind. 286 ; Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383 ; Fry v. Kaessner, 48 Neb. 133. Thus, in Nebraska, a warrant is required after arrest by a private person on suspicion of petit larceny. Kyner v. Laubner, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 491. Liability of Officer Detaining Prisoner Without a Warrant. — Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598 ; Raitz v. Green, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 238; 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 455. Disposition of Prisoner by Private Person. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Warner, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 463. Disposition of Escaped Convict. — An officer arresting an escaped convict, without a war- rant, must within a reasonable time return him to his proper keepers. McQueen v. State, 130 Ala. 136. Without Unreasonable Delay. — It is the duty of the officer to take the party arrested before a magistrate without unreasonable delay. Brish v. Carter, 98 Md. 445 ; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715; Tobin v. Bell, 73 N. Y. APP- Div. 41; Snead v. Bonnoil, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 330; Stewart v. Feeley, 118 Iowa 524; Higby v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 452; Richard- son v. Dybedahl, 14 S. Dak. 126. What Is Unreasonable Delay. — Where a pris- oner is arrested at four o'clock a. if., and an opportunity is given to him to go before a magistrate at nine o'clock a. m., he cannot com- plain of unreasonable delay. Bishop v. Lucy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 326. From December 31 to the evening of January 2 has been held to be an unreasonable delay in carrying the prisoner before a magistrate. Lin- nen v. Banfield, 114 Mich. 93. In Illinois the statute provides that one arrested after four o'clock without a warrant may be held over night, or over Sunday, to await the appearance before a magistrate. Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212. 8§2. 1. Night Walkers and Suspicious Char- acters. — State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. 341 882-885 ARREST. Vol. II. 882. h. Of Fugitives from Other States. — See note 3. 883. 4. By Sheriffs, Mayors, Coroners, and Other Officers. — See note 2. 884. 6. By Private Persons — a. For Felonies in Their Presence. — See note 2. Arrest to Prevent Felony. — See note 3. 885. b. For Past Felonies. — See note i. What Necessary to Justify Individual in Arresting for Past Felony. — See note 2. 882. 2. Arrest of Prostitute. — Compare State v. Boyd, 108 Mo. App. 518. 3. Arrest of Fugitive from Another State. — Wells v. Johnston, 52 La. Ann. 713 ; State v. Aucoin, in La. 5 1 ; State v. Justus, 84 Minn. 237 ; Re Dickey, 8 Can. Crim. Cas. (Nova Scotia) 318, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 882, and applying the doctrine there stated to the case of a fugitive from the United States apprehended in Canada. Com- pare State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297 ; State v. Taylor, 70 Vt. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 648. Pending extradition papers a fugitive from justice may be arrested on a magistrate's war- rant. Com. v. Rhodes, 8 Pa. Dist. 732. 883. 2. Mayor or Coroner. — State v. Mc- Daniel, 78 Miss. 1, 84 Am. St. Rep. 618. 884. 2. Arrest by Private Person for Felony in His Presence — United States. — Park v. Taylor, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 34. California. — Davis v. Pacific Telephone, etc., Co., 127 Cal. 317. Georgia. — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860. Indiana. — Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428. Kentucky. — Mann v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 438. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87. Montana. — State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51. Nebraska. — Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St- Rep. 598. New York. — People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) i ; People v. Hoch- stim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562. North Carolina. — State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606. Ohio. — Leger v. Warren, 62 Ohio St. 500, 78 Am. St. Rep. 738. Oklahoma. — Barclay v. U. S., 11 Okla. 503. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Long, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 648, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 884. South Carolina. — State v. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St. Rep. 845; State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297. Notice of Intent to Arrest has been held to be necessary when a private person makes an arrest without a warrant. State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606. 3. Arrest by Private Person to Prevent Felony. — Park v. Taylor, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 34; State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. 885. 1. Arrest by Private Individual for Past Felony — Indiana. — Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428. Iowa. — State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660. Kentucky. — Begley v. Com., 60 S. W. Rep. 847, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1546. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Missouri. — State v. Albright, 144 Mo. 645, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 885 ; State v. Evans, 83 Mo. App. 301. Nebraska. — Kyner v. Laubner, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 491. New York. — People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1. North Carolina. — State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606. Oklahoma. — Barclay v. U. S., 11 Okla. 503. Pennsylvania. ■ — Com. v. Grether, 204 Pa. St. 203. South Carolina. — State v. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St. Rep. 845; State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297. Utah. — People v. Coughlin, 1 3 Utah 58. Vermont. — State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. Wisconsin. — Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377, 80 Am. St. Rep. 33. Contra. — Russell v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 314, holding that in order to justify an arrest by a private individual without a warrant the felony must have been committed in his actual pres- ence and view, and it is not sufficient that the party making the arrest was near enough to have seen, but did not actually see, the offense. 2. When Private Person Justified in Arresting for Past Felony — United States. — Park v. Tay- lor, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 34. Indiana. — Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428. Iowa. — State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Missouri. — State v. Albright, 144 Mo. 645, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 885 ; State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 84 Am. St. Rep. 669 ; State v. Evans, 83 Mo. App. 301. Nebraska. — Kyner v. Laubner, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 491 ; Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb. 121, 50 Am. St. Rep. 598. New Mexico. — Territory v. McGinnis, 10 N. Mex. 269. New York. — People v. Glennon, (Supm. Ct Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 1 ; People v. Hoch- stim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562. North Carolina. — State v. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 606. South Carolina. — State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297 ; State v. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St Rep. 845. Utah. — People v. Coughlin, 13 Utah 58; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah 162. Vermont. — States. Shaw, 73 Vt. 140. Private Person Acts at His Peril. — A private person making an arrest acts at his peril and is responsible unless it can be shown that flie felony has actually been committed. Gamier iv Squires, 62 Kan. 321. 34a Vol. II. ARREST. 887-893 887. If a Person Who Has Seen Arrested for a Felony Escapes. — See note I. 888. c. For Affrays and Other Offenses in Their Presence. — See note i. 889. Where a Misdemeanor Amounts to a Breach of the Peace, — See note I. Misdemeanor Not Amounting to a Breach of the Peace. — See note 2. d. For Past Riots and Affrays. — See note 4. e. Assisting Officer. — See note 1. 7. By Surety in Bail Bond. — See note 3. By Deputy of Surety. — See note I . 8. By Military Officer — a. Of Deserters. — See note 2. 9. Hue and Cry. — See note 3. 10. For Insanity. — See note 1. 11. In Civil Cases. — See note 2. VI. Illegal Arrest — 1. In General. — See note 3. 890. 891. 892. 893. Rule of Conduct for Private Person Acting With- out Warrant. — In Montana, by statute, " a private person, before making an arrest, shall state to the person about to be arrested the cause thereof, and require him to submit, except when such person is in actual commission of the offense, at the time thereof, or is in ac- tual flight thereafter." State v. Gay, 18 Mont. Si- $87. 1. Rearrest After Escape of One Charged with Felony. — Williford v. State, 121 Ga. 173 ; State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 84 Am. St. Rep. 669 ; State 11. Stancill, 128 N. Car. 609, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 887 ; State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297 ; State v . Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. Arrest of Escaped Convict. — A private person may arrest on sight an escaped convict and use all the force necessary. State v. Craft, 164 Mo. 631. 888. 1. Arrest by Private Individual for Affray in His Presence — Georgia. — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860. Illinois. — Lynn v. People, 170 111. 527. Indiana. — Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428. Iowa. — State v. Weston, 98 Iowa r25- Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am.' St. Rep. 513. Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87. New York. — People v. Hochstim, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 562 ; Emmerich v. Thorley, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 452. North Carolina. — Sossamon v. Cruse, 133 N. Car. 470. South Carolina. — State v. Whittle, 59 S. Car. 297. Texas. — Russell v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 314. Vermont. — State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. Statute Declaratory of Common-law Right. — The Georgia statute authorizing a military offi- cer to arrest without a warrant any one dis- turbing an authorized parade is only declaratory of the right that exists to any private person under the common law. White v. State, 99 Ga. 16. Actual Guilt Must Be Proved. — An arrest by a private person can be justified only by prov- ing the actual guilt of the person arrested. Siegel v. Connor, 70 111. App. 116. See also Hicrht v. Naylor. 86 111. App. 508. 889. 1. Misdemeanor Amounting to Breach of Peace. — Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428. 2. Misdemeanors Generally. — Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860. Compare Tobin v. Bell, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 41. In Nebraska a statute empowers a private per- son to arrest on reasonable grounds to suspect a petit larceny. Kyner v. Laubner, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 491. 4. Past Crimes. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87; States. Davis, 53 S. Car. 150, 69 Am. St. Rep. 845. 890. 1. Private Person Assisting Officer at His Demand. — State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 84 Am. St. Rep. 669. See also supra, this title, 859. 2. et seq. Who Is Assistant. — A post-office inspector who assists an officer in searching a prisoner is an assistant of the arresting officer. Stuart v. Harris, 69 111. App. 668. Liability of Party Assisting. — It has been held that all persons aiding or assisting in an un- lawful arrest are liable although they did not have knowledge that the arrest was unlawful when they assisted in it. Burch v. Franklin, 7 Ohio Dec. 519, 7 Ohio N. P. 155. Duty of Assistants to Render Aid. — Where in making an arrest a struggle ensues between the officer and the accused it is the duty of the officer's assistants to aid him whether so re- quested or not. State v. Miller, 5 Ohio Dec. 703, 7 Ohio N. P. 458. 3. Surety on Bail Bond. — In re Siebert, 6 1 Kan. 112; Finney v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 636; Coleman v. State, 121 Ga. 594. See also the titles Bail (in Civil Cases) 624. 3. et seq. ; Bail and Recognizance (in Crim- inal Cases) 708. 2. et seq. 891. 1. Surrender by Surety's Agent. — Coleman v. State, 121 Ga. 594. 2. Same — By Police Officer — Private Person. — Kendall v. Scheve, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 303. 892. 3. Hue and Cry. — See State v. Shaw, 73 Vt. 149. 893. 1. Mulberry v. Fuellhart, 203 Pa. St. 573- Private Person Acts at His Peril. — A private person making an arrest of an alleged lunatic without a warrant does so at his peril. Em- merich v. Thorley, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 452. 2. Park v. Taylor, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 34; In re Troy, 67 Kan. 186. 3. Warrant Fair on Its Face — Liability of: 343 894-899 ARREST. Vol. II. 894. 2. Liability for Illegal Arrest — a. Of Person Procuring War- rant — A Private Person. — See note I . 893. Assent — Arrest by Mistake. — See note 3. b. Of Justice Issuing Warrant — inferior Magistrates. — See 897. note 1. 898. 899. See note 1. Superior Judges. — See note I . Officers — United States. — Carman v. , Emer- son, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 264; Hofschulte v. Doe, 78 Fed. Rep. 436; Whitten v. Bennett, 77 Fed. Rep. 271, affirmed (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 405. Alabama. — Spear v. State, 120 Ala. 351; Brown v. State, log Ala. 70. Georgia. — Page v. Citizens Banking Co., 111 Ga. 73, 78 Am. St. Rep. 144; Williams v. Sew- ell, 121 Ga. 665. Iowa. — Chambers v. Oehler, 107 Iowa 155. Maine. — Jacques v. Parks, 96 Me. 268. Massachusetts. — Tellefsen v. Fee, 168 Mass. 188, 60 Am. St. Rep. 379. Michigan. — Schultz v. Huebner, 108 Mich. 274. Nebraska. — Kelsey v. Klabunde, 54 Neb. 760. New York. — Krauskopf v. Tallman, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 273. Vermont. — Goodell v. Tower, (Vt. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 790. Wisconsin. — Holz v. Rediske, 116 Wis. 353. 884. 1. Illegal Arrest — liability of Private Individuals — United States. — Park v. Taylor, (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 34; Bryan v. Congdon, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 221. Alabama. — Oates v. Bullock, 136 Ala. 537, 96 Am. St. Rep. 38; Brown v. Birmingham, 140 Ala. 590. Delaware. — Petit v. Colmery, 4 Penn. (Del.) 266. Illinois. — Pinkerton v. Martin, 82 111. App. 589 ; Clark v. Hill, 96 111. App. 383. Kansas. — Bell v. Day, 9 Kan. App. m. Maine. — Palmer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 92 Me. 399, 69 Am. St. Rep. 513. Massachusetts. — Morrow v. Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co., 165 Mass. 349. Michigan. — Doty v. Hurd, 124 Mich. 671; Tillman v. Beard, 121 Mich. 475; Burbanks v. Lepovsky, 134 Mich. 384. Missouri. — McCaskey v. Garrett, 91 Mo. App. 354; Stubbs v. Mulholland, 168 Mo. 47; Monson v. Rouse, 86 Mo. App. 97; Dougherty v. Snyder, 97 Mo. App. 495. Nebraska. — Scott v. Flowers, 60 Neb. 675. New York. — Whitney v. Hanse, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 420. South Carolina. — Whaley v. Lawton, 62 S. Car. 91. South Dakota. — Richardson v. Dybedahl, 14 S. Dak. 126. Texas. — Karner v. Stump, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 460. Vermont. — Goodell v. Tower, (Vt. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 790. Virginia. — Bolton v. Vellines, 94 Va. 393, 64 Am. St. Rep. 737. Wisconsin. — Holz v. Rediske, 116 Wis. 353. Question of Fact. — The question whether the purpose of a person making an arrest is lawful or unlawful is for the jury. State v. Pate 5 Ohio Dec. 732, 7 Ohio N. P. 543. A Client May Be Liable for His Attorney's Acts in inducing a magistrate to issue a criminal warrant. Brueckner v. Frederick, (Mo. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 775. Municipal Corporations are not, as a general rule, liable for illegal arrests by their officers. Bartlett v. Columbus, 101 Ga. 300; Lahner v. Williams, 112 Iowa 428; Bean v. Middlesboro, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 478 ; Crosdale v. Cynthiana, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 977; Tay- lor Atl. Rep. 632 ; Armstrong v. Rhoads, 4 Penn. (Del.) 151; Courtney v. Clinton, 18 Ind. App. 620 ; James v. Hayes, 63 Kan. 133 ; Beavers v. Bowen, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1 1 65; Goucher v. Jamie- son, 124 Mich. 21 ; Stuppy v. Hof, 82 Mo. App. 272; Hickey v. Welch, 91 Mo. App. 4; O'Don- nel v. St. Louis Transit Co., 107 Mo. App. 34; Cooper v. Hopkins, 70 N. H. 271 ; Clayton v. Keeler, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 488; Nichols v. Brabazon, 94 Wis. 549. See also the title Damages. Humiliation and Degradation of Passenger. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tracey, 109 111. App. 563. Compensatory Damages When No Battery Is Committed. — Kline v. Kline, 158 Ind. 602; Hickey v. Welch, 91 Mo. App. 4; Prince v. Ridge, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 666; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Crawford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 71 S. W. Rep. 306. Contra, Grayson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 100 Mo. App. 60. 993. 1. Exemplary Damages — Delaware. — Hendle v. Geiler, (Del. 1895) 50 Atl. Rep. 632; Watson v. Hastings, 1 Penn. (Del.) 47. Georgia. — Berkner v. Dannenberg, 116 Ga. 954- Louisiana. — Webb v. Rothschild, 49 La. Ann. 244. Minnesota. — Germolus v. Sausser, 83 Minn. 141. Mississippi. — Lochte v. Mitchell, (Miss. 1900) 28 So. Rep. 877. Missouri. — Berryman v. Cox, 73 Mo. App. 67 ; Ickenroth v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 597- New Jersey. — Blackmore v. Ellis, 70 N. J. L. 264. Ohio. — Hendricks v. Fowler, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 209, 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. 597. Texas. — Jackson v. Wells, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 275. See also Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Randell, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 460. Wisconsin. — Lamb u. Stone, 9's Wis. 254 ; Nichols v. Brabazon, 94 Wis. 549. Actual Damages Must Be Shown. — Shaffer v. Austin, 68 Kan. 234. The Expenses of Litigation constitute a proper element of punitive damages. Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369, 71 Am. St. Rep. 213 ; List v. Miner, 74 Conn. 50. Plaintiff Aggressor. — In Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Randolph, 65 111. App. 208, it was held that one who used excessive force in resisting an assault calculated to arouse great passion was liable only in actual damages. In a Joint Assault, where one of the wrong- doers is actuated by malice, both are liable for exemplary damages. Reizenstein v. Clark, 104 Iowa 287. • 994. 1. Compensatory Damages Only. — In Haviland v. Chase, 116 Mich. 214, 72 Am. St. Rep. 519, it was held that in the absence of an express statutory provision, damages for trespass to the person are to be limited to a full compensation for the injury. 2. Liability of Corporations in Exemplary Damages. — It is held that a corporation is lia- ble in exemplary damages only where it ex- pressly authorized the act as it was performed, or ratified it. Maisenbacker v. Society Con- cordia, 71 Conn. 369, 71 Am. St. Rep. 213; Lexington R. Co. v. Cozine, in Ky. 799, 98 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; Tanger v. Southwest Mis- souri Electric R. Co., 85 Mo. App. 28 ; Icken- roth v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. App. 597. See also the title Exemplary Damages, 41.5- 3. Badostain v. Grazide, 115 Cal. 425; Wat- son v. Hastings, r Penn. (Del.) 47 ; Reizen- stein v. Clark, 104 Iowa 287; Edwards v. Warnkey, 63 Kan. 889, 66 Pac. Rep. 987; Ragsdale v. Ezell, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 775 ; Wood v. Young, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 541 ; Ryan v. Quinn, 71 S. W. Rep. 872, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1513- For Verdicts Held Not to Be Excessive see Sa- bre v. Mott, 88 Fed. Rep. 780 ; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Baird, 130 Ala. 334; Cross v. Car- ter, 100 Ga. 632; Wood v. Young, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 541 ; Hollins v. Gorham, 66 S. 363 995-999 A SSA ULT AND BA TTER Y. Vpl. II. 995. c. Evidence in Aggravation or Mitigation of Damages — (i) Evidence in Aggravation. — See note i. 996. Pecuniary Condition of Defendant. — See notes I, 2. (2) Evidence in Mitigation — When Provocation or Excuse May Be Shown. — See notes 3, 4. 997. What May Be Shown in Mitigation or Excuse. — See notes I, 2. 998. See note 2. Provocation Must Have Been Recent. — See note 4. 999. VII. Evidence — 1. Generally. — See notes 3, 4. W. Rep. 823, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2185 ; Faulkner v. Davis, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1049; Rags- dale v. Ezell, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 775; Hirschman v. Emme, 81 Minn. 99 ; Plonty v. Murphy, 82 Minn. 268 ; Rauma v. Lamont, 82 Minn. 477 ; Wagner v. Gibbs, 80 Miss. 53, 92 Am. St. Rep. 598 ; O'Donnel v. St. Louis Tran- sit Co., 107 Mo. App. 34; Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698 ; Osier v. Walton, 67 N. J. L. 63 ; Long v. McWilliams, n Okla. 562; San An- tonio Traction Co. v. Crawford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 71 S. W. Rep. 306 ; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 56 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 58 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, (Tex. Civ. App- 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1 104; Doyle v. Cora., loo Va. 808, 4 Va. Sup. Ct. 143; Schmitz v. Kirchan, 32 Wash. 546 ; Bruske v. Neugent, 116 Wis. 488. For Examples of Excessive Damages see Chi- cago, etc., R. Co. v. Swadener, 87 111. App. 501 ; Norris v. Whyte, 158 Mo. 20 ; Grayson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 100 Mo. App. 60 ; Rees v. Rasmussen, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 830; Slingerland v. Gillespie, 67 N. J. L. 385 ; Con- Ion v . Metropolitan St. R. Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 394. 995. 1, Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369, 71 Am. St. Rep. 213. Counsel Fees. — In Hudson v. Voigt, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 35, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 391, it was held that the jury might in its discretion include in its award of damages a reasonable attorney fee, though evidence as to the value of attorney's services was inadmissible. See generally the title Damages, vol. 8, p. 673 et seq., and the Supplement thereto. 996. 1. Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113; Hendricks v. Fowler, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 209, 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. 597 ; Willet v. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563. But see Givens v. Berkley,. 108 Ky. 236 ; Beavers v. Bowen, 70 S. W. Rep. 195, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 882. 2. Berryman v. Cox, 73 Mo. App. 67. 3. Hendle v. Geiler, (Del. 1895) 50 Atl. Rep. 632; Daniel v. Giles, 108 Tenn. 242. See also Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. La Prelle, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 496. Provocation Mitigates Punitive, but Not Actual, Damages. — Armstrong v. Rhoads, 4 Penn. (Del.) 151 ; Armstrong v. Little, 4 Penn. (Del.) 255 ; Osier v. Walton, 67 N. J. L. 63 ; Barrette v. Carr, 75 Vt. 425. 4. Provocation in Mitigation of Actual Damages. — Genung v. Baldwin, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 584- 997. 1. One Who Punishes the Child of An- other may introduce evidence of the parent's consent as tending to show an absence of un- lawful intent. Donnelley v. Territory, (Ariz. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep. 368, 2. Threats. — In Nebraska it is held that threats may not be shown in mitigation pf damages. Mangold v. Oft, 63 Neb. 397. Insult to Defendant's Wife. — Evidence that the plaintiff had sent an insulting message to the defendant's wife, and that the defendant learned of this a. short time before the assault, has been held to be admissible, Shapiro v. Michelson, 19 Tex. Civ. App, 615. Abusive language used by the plaintiff may be considered in mitigation of damages. Berk- ner v. Dannenberg, 116 Ga. 954; Yeager v. Berry, 82 Mo. App. 534. 99S. 2. Evidence of Criminal Conviction for the Same Offense is held to be inadmissible in some jurisdictions. Armstrong v. Rhoads, 4 Penn. (Del.) 151; Edwards v. Wessinger, 6s S. Car. 161, 95 Am. St. Rep. 789. In other jurisdictions it is held that such evidence is admissible. Jackson v. Wells, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 275- 4. Provocation Must Have Been Recent. — Car- son v. Singleton, 65 S. W. Rep. 821, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1626; Munday v. Landry, 51 La. Ann. 303; Genung v. Baldwin, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 195 ; Davis v. Collins, 69 S. Car. 460, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 998 ; Ma- lone v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 35 S, W. Rep. 991. Question of Law. — What is sufficient cooling time is a question of law for the court. Car- son v. Singleton, 65 S. W, Rep. 821, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1626. 999. 3. Evidence Held Sufficient to Convict — Arizona. — Mazzotte v. Territory, (Ariz. 1903) 71 Pac. Rep. 911. California. — People v. Wilson, 119 Cal. 384; People v. Hawkins, 127 Cal. 372; People v. Hite, 135 Cal. 76. Florida. — Peterson v. State, 41 Fla. 285. Georgia. — Price v. State, 118 Ga. 60; Mor- gan v. State, 119 Ga- 566. Illinois. — Crowell v. People, jgo 111. 508. Indiana. — Martin v. State, 13 Ind. App. 389 ; Hornbeck v. State, 16 Ind. App. 484; Anderson v. State, 147 Ind. 445 ; O'Hara v. State, 21 Ind. App. 320; Lee v. State, 156 Ind. 541. Iowa. — State v. Hoot, 120 Iowa 238, 98 Am. St. Rep. 352. Kansas. — State v. Roberts, 67 Kan. 631. Michigan. — People v. Kalunki, 123 Mich, no; People v. Bernard, 125 Mich. 550; People v. Townsend, 120 Mich. 661. Mississippi. — Malone v. State, 77 Miss. 812. Missouri. — State v. Wiggins, 152 Mo. 170; State v. Vaughn, 164 Mo. 536 ; State v. Thorn- hill, 177 Mo. 691 ; State v. Sayman, 103 Mo. App. 141. 364 Vol. II. A SSA ULT AND BA TTER Y. 1000 1000. 2. Evidence of Intent. — See note i. Montana. — State v. Broadbent, 19 Mont. 467. New York. — People v. Ametta, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 623 ; People v; Maggio, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 622 ; People v. Hannigan, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 617. Rhode Island. — State v. Baker, 20 R. I. 275, 78 Am. St. Rep. 863. Texas. — Thompson v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 448; Whitehead v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 422; Yawn v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. '205; Dominguez v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 981 ; Bodeman v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 981 ; Davis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 4 2 S. W. Rep. 290; Howerton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 43 S. W. Rep. 1018; Estes v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 838; Hanley v. State, (Tex. Crim. i8g8) 47 S. W. Rep. 371 ; Henry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 96; Rogers v. State, 46 Tex. Crim. 355 ; Scroggins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 232; Brister v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 505 ; Riojos v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 172; Jay v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 451 ; Holloway v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 883 ; Chris- tian v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 422; Adams v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 1059 ; Furlough v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1 901) 65 S. W. Rep. 1069; Nelson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 775 ; Yeary v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1106 ; Webb v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 276 ; Werner v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 681 ; Burns v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 24; Fortenberry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 593 ; Heinen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 776 ; Freeman v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 17; Blain v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 518; Pace v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W; Rep. 531. Utah. — State v. McCune, 1 6 Utah, 170. Virginia. — Doyle v. Com., 100 Va. 808, 4 Va. Sup. Ct. 143. Wyoming. — Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311. Assault with Intent to Eape. — Harlan v. Peo- ple, (Colo. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 792; State v. Alcorn, 137 Mo. 121 ; Allen v. State, 36 Tex Crim. 381 ; Berry v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 395 999. 4. Evidence Held Insufficient to Con vict — • Arkansas. — Dillard v. State, 65 Ark. 404. Georgia. — Williams v. State, 99 Ga. 203 Burton v. State, 109 Ga. 134; Penny v. State, 114 Ga. 77. Illinois. — Duffy v. People, 197 111. 357. Indiana. — Manahan v. State, 18 Ind. App. 297. Nebraska. — Likens v. State, 63 Neb. 249 ; Smith v. State, 58 Neb. 531. New York. — People v. Dankberg, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 67 ; Higgins v. Quinn, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 292. Texas. — Thomason v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 43 S. W. Rep. 1013 ; Hawes v. State, (Test. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 1094; Parker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 115; McLendon v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 5S3 ; Black v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) (7 S, W, Rep, U3i Stephens p. State, 44 Tex. >$ Crim. 67 ; Spradling v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1992) 71 S. W. Rep. 17; Barnes v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 168; Fuller v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 463 ; Reese v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 511. Virginia. — Montgomery v. Com., 99 Va. 833, 3 Va. Sup. Ct. 118. Assault with Intent to Rape. — Gaskin v. State, 105 Ga. 632; Jackson v. State, 114 Ga. 861; Franey v. People, 210 111. 206; State v. Hayden, 141 Mo. 311; Caddell v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 213; Sirmons v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 488; Davis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 466 ; Dina v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 229 ; Ross v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 503, 514; Wilcox v. State, 102 Wis. 650. 1000. 1. Evidence Tending to Show Intent. — State v. Jones, 2 Penn. (Del.) 573; State v. Di Guglielmo, 4 Penn. (Del.) 336; State v. Hoot, 120 Iowa 238, 98 Am. St. Rep. 352; Hart v. Com., 60 S. W. Rep. 298, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1183; State v. Hamilton, 170 Mo. 377; Clary v. State, 61 Neb. 688; Bolton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 672. See also Dud- ley v. State, 121 Ala. 4; Starr v. State, 160 Ind. 661. Remarks Made After the Assault. — See Ray v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 446; Gaines v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 331. And see the title Res Gest.«. Testimony of Defendant as to His Intention Relevant. — The defendant may testify as to his motive in doing an act. Jackson v. Com., 96 Va. 107. Evidence of Nature and Extent of Prosecutor's Injuries. — State v. Foreman, 1 Marv. (Del.) S17; State v. Grant, 144 Mo. 56. Evidence of Intoxication as Bearing on Intent. — See Whitten v. State, 115 Ala. 72; State v. Di Guglielmo, 4 Penn. (Del.) 336 ; State v. Pas- nau, 118 Iowa 501; State v. Alcorn, 137 Mo. 121; Little u. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 551. And see the title Intoxication. Intoxication as Increasing Probability that Assault Was Committed. — The intoxication of the defendant and the extent thereof may be shown as increasing the probability that he committed the offense. Bagley v. Mason, 69 Vt. 175. Intent — Question for Jury. — The question of intent is one of fact for the jury to determine from all the circumstances and attendant facts. Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9; Robinson v. State, 118 Ga. 750; Lanier v. State, 106 Ga. 368; Ward v. State, 58 Neb. 719 ; Smith v. State, 58 Neb. 531 ; State v. Mehaffey, 132 N. Car. 1062. Where No Personal Violence or Battery Is In- flicted, and the sole injury is to the feelings, an intent to injure cannot be presumed. Ward v. State, 58 Neb. 719; Chambless v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 577. Excitement and Anger of Defendant. — The jury should be allowed to consider the anger of the defendant, provoked by a previous as- sault upon him by the prosecutor, as showing absence of intent to murder. Murray v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 990; Stevens v. State, 38 Tex, Cfim. 550, 1001-1003 ASSA ULT, ETC. —ASSA Y VALUE. Vol. II. 1001. Evidence of Previous Threats. — See note I. Evidence of Previous Assaults. — See note 2. 3. Character in Evidence — a. Civil Action — (i) Character of Plaintiff. — See notes 3, 4. 1003. (2) Character of Defendant. — See note 1. b. Criminal Prosecution — (i) Character of Defendant. — See (2) Character of Prosecutor. — See notes 3, 4. c. Specific Acts. — See note 5. 1003. d. Defendant as Witness. — See note 1. note 2. [ASSAY VALUE. — See note ia.J Evidence of Provocation has been held to be admissible to reduce the degree of the offense. Heard v. State, 114 Ga. 90; Garrett v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 230. See also People v. Town- send, 120 Mich. 661. An assault on the defendant is not sufficient, in the absence of proof that it aroused pas- sion, to reduce assault with intent to murder to aggravated assault. Chatman v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 346. The question of prior provocation together with cooling time as bearing on intent should be left to the jury. Mundine v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 5. An Intent to Commit Rape Kay Be Inferred from the conduct of the defendant at the time of the assault. Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9; Hanes v. State, 155 Ind. 112. Admissions. — In a prosecution for indecent assault, evidence that the prosecutrix admitted to the defendant that she had had intercourse with other men is admissible as tending to show lack of intent to injure. Wilson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 106. 1001. 1. State v. Foreman, 1 Marv. (Del.) 517; People v. Bernard, 125 Mich. 550. 2. Evidence of Previous Assaults. — Hanks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 173; Rogers v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 355. The state having introduced evidence of a previous difficulty between the prosecutor and the defendant, the latter may show that the prosecutor was the aggressor in the previous affair. Morrison v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 601. 3. Civil Action — Character of Plaintiff. — In an action for unnecessary violence in making an arrest, evidence of the reputation and char- acter of the plaintiff as a dangerous person is admissible. Beckman v. Souther, 68 N. H. 381. See also Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 56. See gen- erally the title Character (in Evidence). The reputation of the plaintiff as to his quar- relsome nature may be shown in support of a plea of selfrdefense. Dannenberg v. Berkner, 118 Ga. 885; Golder v. Lund, 50 Neb. 867; Henning v. Bartz, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 15. 4. Character of Plaintiff in Indecent Assault. — Compare Sayen v. Ryan, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 732, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. 631. See generally the titles Character (in Evidence) ; Rape. Assault with Intent to Rape — Character of Prosecutrix. — Evidence of the bad reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity is no defense, but may be considered by the jury as affecting the credibility of th» prosocutrix and ss t° the probability of consent. State v. McCune, 16 Utah 170. Damages. — Evidence of the plaintiff's char- acter, in an action for indecent assault, is ad- missible as bearing on the question of damages. Barton v. Bruley, 119 Wis. 326. 1002. 1. CivilAction — Character of Defendant. — ■ Treschman v. Treschman, 28 Ind. App. 206 ; Lyddon v. Dose, 81 Mo. App. 64; Sayen v. Ryan, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 732, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. 631 ; Barton v. Bruley, 119 Wis. 326. See gen- erally the title Character (in Evidence). Bad Character of Defendant. — In a civil ac- tion the bad character of the defendant may not be shown, as his character is not in issue. Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698. 2. Evidence of the Bad Character of the Defendant is not admissible except where the defendant has himself placed his character in issue. Max- well v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 516. See generally the title Character (in Evidence). 3. Criminal Prosecution — Character of Prose- cutor. — Rufus v. State, 117 Ala. 131. In a Prosecution for Indecent Assault, evidence of the good reputation of the prosecutrix for virtue and chastity is admissible. Wilson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 106. 4. Character of Prosecutor for Peaceableness. — The good character of the prosecutor may be shown where the defendant has testified to previous threats or hostile acts on his part. Rhea v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 138. Reputation of Prosecutor for Veracity. — Where an effort has been made to impeach the prose- cuting witness, the state may introduce evidence as to his reputation for truth and veracity, but otherwise such evidence is inadmissible. Mor- rison v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 601. Character of Prosecutor Subsequent to Assault. — Evidence of the bad character of the prose- cutor at a time subsequent to the alleged as- sault is not admissible. Burks v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 167. 5. Proof of Another Offense. — See Silliman v. Sampson, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 623 ; Maxwell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 516. 1003. 1. Bolton w. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 672. la. Assay Value. — Where by an agreement mill men were to return a certain per cent, of the assay value of gold ore worked in the mill, this was held to mean the standard aasay value of gold as known everywhere, and not the value of gold bullion at the plaoe. wher? pranced, Yi«tti V, NMbjM, It Nev, s«9, ASSIGNMENTS. By Leo Goodman. 1010. II. History and Development — Equitable Assignments. — See note 6. 1013. HI. Pabties to Assignment — 2. Competency — Partners. — See note g. 1014. IV. What May Be Assigned — 1. Choses in Action Generally — a. ORIGINAL DOCTRINE — (i) At Common Law — Choses in Action Not Assignable. — See note 3. 1015. (2) In Equity — Choses in Action Assignable in Equity. — See note 7. 1017. b. Modern Doctrine — (i) Generally — And courts of law, Following the Boles of Equity in This Respect- — See note I . (2) Test of Assignability — The General Test to Be Applied See note 4. 1018. Bights Arising from Contracts Founded on Personal Confidence. — See note I . (3) Choses ex Contractu. — See note 2. 1010. 6. Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543- 1012. 9. Partners. — -American Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Nickey, 101 Mo. App. 20 ; Sulli- van v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. 1014. 3. Choses in Action Not Assignable at Common Law. — Lloyd v. Russell First Nat. Bank, 5 Kan. App. 512; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543 ; St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432; McConaughey v. Ben- nett, 50 W. Va. 172. 1015. 7. Choses in Action Assignable in Equity. — Pearson v. Luecht, 199 111. 475, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1015 ; Wright v . Hardy, 76 Miss. 524 ; Sullivan v. Vis- conti, 68 N. J. L. 543. 1017. 1. Courts of Law Will Protect Bights of Assignees. — Pearson v. Luecht, 199 111. 475 ; Doty v. Caldwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1025. 4. Test of Assignability. — Edmunds v. Illi- nois Cent. R. Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 78 ; Mumford v. Wright, 12 Colo. App. 214; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 111. 100; Noble v. Hunter, 2 Kan. App. 538; McLeland v. St. Louis Tran- sit Co., 1 os Mo. App. 473 ; Mitchell v. Taylor, 27 Oregon 377; Ex p. Hiers, 67 S. Car. 108, 100 Am. St. Rep. 713 ; Taylor v. Sturgis, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 270; Lawler v. Jennings, 18 Utah 35, citing 2 An. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1017; McConaughey v. Bennett, 50 W. Va. 172; Ellis v. Southwestern Land Co., 94 Wis. 531. As to What Causes of Action Survive see the following notes, and see generally the title Survival of Actions, 21 Encyc. of Pl. and Ph. 309. IOIS. 1. Griffith v. Tower Pub. Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 21; Tifton, etc., R. Co. v. Bedgood, 116 Ga. 945 ; Northwestern Cooperage, etc., Co. v. Byers, 133 Mich. 534; Tate v. Security Trust Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 559; Mitchell v. Taylor, 27 Oregon 377. 9. Bights of Action ex Contractu May Be As- signed — England. ™ Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturer^ (5903) A, C, W !? b Ti H-. h M ' >•? Georgia. — Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599; Tifton, etc., R. Co. v. Bedgood, 116 Ga. 945. Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Kansas Farmers' Ins. Co., 7 Kan. App. 447 ; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Chenoweth" 5 Kan. App. 810; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Phelps, 10 Kan. App. 1. Michigan. — Rodgers v. Torrent, 1 1 1 Mich. 680. Missouri. — Kingsbury v. Joseph, 94 Mo. App. 298. New Jersey. — Howe v. Smeeth Copper, etc.. Bronze Co., (N. J. r9oo) 48 Atl. Rep. 24 ; Van Pelt v. Schauble, 68 N. J. L. 638. North Carolina. — Anniston Nat. Bank v. Durham School Committee, 121 N. Car. 107. Oregon. — Mitchell v. Taylor, 27 Oregon 377. Rhode Island. — Westminster Bank v. Ather- ton, 24 R. I. 334. Texas. — Raywood Rice Canal, etc., Co. v. Langford, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 401. West Virginia. — St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432, citing ■> Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1018. The Bight of Action for a Breach of Contract Resulting in a Pecuniary Loss. — Buffalo Tin Can Co. v. E. W. Bliss Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 106. An Unliquidated Balance. — Lawler v. Jen- nings, 18 Utah 35, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1020. The Bight of Action Against a Street Railway in favor of the city for street paving is assign- able. Houston City St. R. Co. v. Storrie, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 693. A Bight to Use a Trademark may be assigned. Robinson v. Storm, 103 Tenn. 40. A Liquor-tax Certificate and moneys to be re- funded upon its surrender are assignable. Mat- ter of Jenney, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 244- A Ferry Franchise may be assigned. Evans v. Kroutinger, (Idaho 1903) 72 Pac. Rep. 882. A Bight of Subrogation is assignable. San Francisco Sav. Union v. Long, (Cal. 1898) 53 Pac. Rep. 907. County Warrants are assignable. People v, Rio Qr»n4? go^nty, i? Cole, A$-, H% 1030 1037 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1030. (4) C hoses ex Delicto — The General Doctrine. — See note 1. Instances of What Assignable. — See note 3. 1031. See notes 1, 2. 1033. See notes 2, 3. 1033. Instances of What Not Assignable. — See note I. Fraud and Deceit. — See note 6. 1034. The Assignment of a Mere Eight to File a Bill in Equity. — See note 2. 1035. Qualification. — See note 1. 1036. 2. Particular Interests, Rights, and Contracts Considered — a. FUTURE and Contingent Interests — (i) Generally. — See note 4. 1 037. Operation of Assignment in Equity. — See note I . The Bight of Action of a Creditor of a Corpora- tion to sue the trustees personally under a stat- ute attaching personal liability to them upon their failure to publish a report is assignable. Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck, 76 Fed. Rep. 695. Assignment Prohibited by Terms of Contract. — See Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. Damages Recovered for Interference with a Con- tract are included in the terms of an assign- ment which extends to all moneys which may become payable in respect of the contract. Graham v. Bourque, 6 Ont. L. Rep. 428. 1020. 1. Right of Action for Tort Not Gener- ally Assignable. — Dawson v. Great Northern, etc., R. Co., (1904) 1 K. B. 277, 90 L. T. N. S. 20 ; Lloyd v. Russell First Nat. Bank, 5 Kan. App. 512 ; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 111. 100. 3. Injuries Affecting Estate Rather than Person Assignable. — Rucker v . Bolles, 49 U. S. App. 358, 80 Fed. Rep. 504; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 111. 100; Ex p. Hiers, 67 S. Car. 108, ioo Am. St. Rep. 713. A Right of Aotion for Injury to Personal Prop- erty is assignable. Bolster v. Ithaca St. R. Co., 79 N. Y. App. Div. 239. 1021. 1. Conversion of Property. — U. S. v. Ferguson, 78 Fed. Rep. 103, 45 U. S. App. 457, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1021 ; McCornick v. Friedman, (Idaho 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 762 ; Noble v. Hunter, 2 Kan. App. 538 ; Jackson v. Sevatson, 79 Minn. 275 ; Robin- son v. Kaplan, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 686 ; Rothschild v. Allen, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 233 ; Wolff v. Rausch, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 108. 2. Trespass on Lands. — Hovey v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 398. Contra, under the statute in Georgia, Allen v. Macon, etc., R. Co., 107 Ga. 838. 1022. 2. Claim for Money Tortiously Obtained. — Sellers v. Arie, 99 Iowa 515. The Right to Recover Back Usurious Interest. — Taylor v. Sturgis, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 270. Con- tra, Lloyd v. Russell First Nat. Bank, 5 Kan. App. 512, holding that a claim against a na- tional bank for usurious interest paid is founded in tort, and therefore is not assign- able ; Ex p. Hiers, 67 S. Car. 108, 100 Am. St. Rep. 713. The Right to Recover Money Deposited on a Wagering Contract is assignable. Zeltner v. Irwin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 13- 3. Killing of Stock. — Henderson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 131 Mich. 438. 1023. I, Actions Strictly Personal Not As- signable. — Mumford v. Wright, 12 Colo. App. 214; Mitchell v. Taylor, 27 Oregon 377; Ex p. Hiers, 67 S. Car. 108, 100 Am. St. Rep. 713. A Right of Action Against a Railroad Company. — North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 1 7 1 111. 1 00, reversing 58 111. App. 572 ; Williams v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 199 111. 57; Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Capek, 82 111. App. 168; McLeland v. St. Louis Transit Co., 105 Mo. App. 473; Marsh v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 204 Pa. St. 229 ; Yonkers v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 18 Lane. L. Rev. 84, 14 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 176; South- ern Pac. Co. v. Winton, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 503. Compare Kent v. Chapel, 67 Minn. 420; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Vaughan, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 403; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 609; Lehmann v. Farwell, 95 Wis. 185, 60 Am. St. Rep. in. 6. Right of Action for Fraud and Deceit Not Assignable. — Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546. 1024. 2. Bill in Equity for Fraud. — Archer v. Freeman, 124 Cal. 528; Smith v. Pacific Bank, 137 Cal. 363; Haseltine v. Smith, 154 Mo. 404 ; Marsh v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 204 Pa. St. 229 ; National Valley Bank v. Hancock, 100 Va. 101, 93 Am. St. Rep. 933, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1024. 1 025. 1, Incidental Right to Sue. — Wimpf- heimer v. Perrine, 61 N. J. Eq. 126; National Valley Bank v. Hancock, 100 Va. 101, 93 Am. St. Rep. 933, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1025. 1026. 4. Assignment of Mere Possibilities at Law. — Wellborn v. Buck, 114 Ala. 277; Shack- elford v. M. C. Kiser Co., 131 Ala. 224; Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, cilitig 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1026; McCall v. Hampton, 98 Ky. 166, 56 Am. St. Rep. 335 ; Price v. Morning Star Min. Co., 83 Mo. App. 470 ; Marsh v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 204 Pa. St. 229. A Pension is not assignable until the warrant has been issued. Gill v. Dixon, 131 N. Car. 87. A Trade Secret is assignable. Vulcan Detin- ning Co. v. American Can Co., (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 290. 1027. 1. Assignment of Mere Possibilities, Contingencies, etc, in Equity. — Brewer v. Griesheimer, 104 111. App. 323 ; Price v. Morning Star Min. Co., 83 Mo. App. 470 ; Hax v. Acme Cement Plaster Co., 82 Mo. App. 447 ; Omaha v. Standard Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027; Mc- Farland v. Stanton Mfg. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 649, 51 Am. St. Rep. 647; Bouvier v. Baltimore, etc., R, Co,, 67 N, J, L. 281 ; Niles v. Mathusa, 368 Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS, 1037-1033 1037. Future Profits. — See note 2. 1028. See note 2. 1029. Expectancies. — See note I. 1030. See note i. 1031. Interest under a Will. — See note I. (2) Unearned Wages or Salary — (a) Where There Is Subsisting Contract of Employment. * — See note 2. 1032. See notes 1, 2, 3. Where the Service Is Continuous. — See note 4. (b) Where There Is No Subsisting Contract of Employment. — See note 5- 1033. See note 1. (c) By Fublio Officers — Unearned Salary of Publio Officers Not Assignable. — See note 2. 20 N. Y. App. Div. 483 ; Congregation Shomri Anshe, etc., v. Sindrock, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 82. 1027. 2. Money to Become Due. — Wal- ton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. S43 ; Citizen's Trust, etc., Co. v. Howell, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 235. Money to Become Due on Performance of Non- assignable Contract. — Omaha v. Standard Oil Co., ss Neb. 337, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1027. 1028. 2. Future Interests Held Assignable. — Money to become due upon the completion of a contract is assignable. Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1028. A judgment to be recovered in a pending ac- tion is assignable. Williams v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 101 111. App. 291. Alimony not yet due is not assignable. Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736. See also Caulfield v. Van Brunt, 173 Pa. St. 428; Knight v. Schwandt, 67 Minn. 71 ; Rydson v. Larson, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 195. 1029. 1. Expectancies. — Mally v. Mally, 121 Iowa 169; Schmidt v. Herberth, 50 La. Ann. 375 ; Niles v. Mathusa, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 483 ; Dutton's Estate, 181 Pa. St. 426; Lennig's Es- tate, 182 Pa. St. 485, 61 Am. St. Rep. 725 ; Hale v. Hollon, 90 Tex. 427 ; Searcy v. Gwaltney, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 576; Hale v. Hollon, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 96. But see Mc- Call v. Hampton, 98 Ky. 166, 56 Am. St. Rep. ass- Fraud Jon Ancestor. — Fuller v. Parmenter, 72 Vt. 362." 1030. 1. Voluntary Assignment Void. — Lennig's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 485, 61 Am. St. Rep. 725 ; Lennig's Estate, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 289, 6 Pa. Dist. 249. 1031. 1. Contingent Bequests and Legacies. — Jackson's Estate, 203 Pa. St. 33. 2. Assignment of Future Wages Under Existing Employment — Alabama. — Wellborn v. Buck, 114 Ala. 277. Arkansas. — Martin-Alexander Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 215 Colorado. — Colorado Fuel, etc., Co. v. Kid- well, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 922, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 103 1. Connecticut. — Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. Con- necticut River Banking Co., 76 Conn. 477. Illinois. — Wenham v. Mallin, 103 111. App. 609, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 03 1, affirmed 209 111. 252; Brewer v. Gries- heimer, 104 111. App. 323. Iowa. — Peterson v. Ball, 121 Iowa 544. Kentucky. — Holt v. Thurman, n 1 Ky. 84, 98 Am. St. Rep. 399, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1031. Maine. — Whitcomb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75. Minnesota. — Steinbach v. Brant, 79 Minn. 383, 79 Am. St. Rep. 494. Missouri. — Hax v. Acme Cement Plaster Co., 82 Mo. App. 447, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1031 ; Bell v. Mulholland, 90 Mo.- App. 612; Tolman v. Union Casualty, etc., Co., 90 Mo. App. 274. New Hampshire. — Lamoureux v. Morin, 72 N. H. 76. Pennsylvania. — Berresford v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 557. Rhode Island. — O'Keefe v. Allen, 20 R. I. 414, 78 Am. St. Rep. 884; Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513- 1032. 1. Hiring from Day to Day. — Colo- rado Fuel, etc., Co. v. Kidwell, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 922 ; Brewer v. Griesheimer, 104 111. App. 323; Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513. 2. Wellborn v. Buck, 114 Ala. 277; Colorado Fuel, etc., Co. v. Kidwell, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 922; Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513. 3. Wellborn v. Buck, 1 14 Ala. 277 ; Dolan v. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513. 4. Renewal of Employment. — Hax v. Acme Cement Plaster Co., 82 Mo. App. 447. 5. No Assignment of Wages by Person Not Employed. — Steinbach v. Brant, 79 Minn. 383, 79 Am. St. Rep. 494 ; Hax v. Acme Cement Plaster Co., 82 Mo. App. 447, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1032; Bell v. Mulholland, 90 Mo. App. 612; Rydson v. Lar- son, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 195 ; Tolman v. Hyndman Steel Roofing Co., 9 Ohio Dec. 501, 6 Ohio N. P. 467 ; O'Keefe v. Allen, 20 R. I. 414, 78 Am. St. Rep. 884. Seaman's WageB. — See The George W. Wells, 118 Fed. Rep. 761 ; The M. M. Morrill, 78 Fed. Rep. 509. 1033. 1. Steinbach v. Brant, 79 Minn. 383, 79 Am. St. Rep. 494. 2. Public Officer Cannot Assign Future Salary. — Chicago v. People, 98 111. App. 517, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033; Holt v. Thurman, in Ky. 84, 98 Am. St. Rep. 399, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033; In re King, no Mich. 203; August v. Crane, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) \ Supp. E. of L. — 24 369 1033-1037 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1033. Reason for the Rule. — See note 3. 1034. illustrations. — See notes 4, n. b. Executory Contracts Involving Personal Trust or Liability — (i) Generally. — See note 12. 1035. (2) General Test of Assignability. — See note 1. Parties May Prohibit Assignment. — See note 2. (3) Applications of the General Test — Where Delectus Persons* Hot Material. — See note 3. 1036. Assignor Will Remain Liable. — See note 2. 1037. Where Delectus Personse Is Material. — See note I. 549; Columbus First Nat. Bank v. State, (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 633 ; State v. Barnes, 10 S. Dak. 306, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033; Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. Cases Apparently Contra. — See McGregor v. McGregor, 130 Mich. 505, 97 Am. St. Rep. 492. 1033. 3. Chicago v. People, 98 111. App. 517, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033; Holt v. Thurman, m Ky. 84, 98 Am. St. Rep. 399, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033 ; State v. Barnes, 10 S. Dak. 306, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1033 ; Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. 1034. 4. County Assessor. — Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. 11, Commissions of Executor. — In re King, no Mich. 203. 12. Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89. 1035. 1. General Test of Assignability. — New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving, etc., Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 41 1 ; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89 ; Poling v. Condon-Lane Boom, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035. 2. Parties May Prohibit Assignment. — Ameri- can Bonding, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866 ; Omaha v. Standard Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337; Zetterlund v. Texas Land, etc., Co., 55 Neb. 355 ; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89. 3. Where Delectus Personse Not Important — United States. — American Bonding, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 124 Fed. Rep. 866,- 60 C. C. A. 52. Illinois. — Mueller v. Northwestern Univer- sity, 95 111. App. 258. Kansas. — Campbell v. Summer County, 64 Kan. 376. Kentucky. — Baker v. Smith, (Ky. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 1014. Michigan. — Northwestern Cooperage, etc., Co. v. Byers, 133 Mich. 534, citing z Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035. Nebraska. — Alden v. George W. Frank Imp. Co., 57 Neb. 67. New York. — New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving, etc., Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 41 1 ; Merritt v. Booklovers' Library, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 454. Oklahoma. — Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89. Pennsylvania. — Galey v. Mellon, 172 Pa. St 443- Tex a s. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 95 Tex. 461 ; Lakeview Land Co. v. San Antonio Traction Co., 95 Tex. 252. West Virginia. — Poling v . Condon-Lane Boom, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1035. See also Hall v. Chitwood, 106 Mo. App. 568. Executory Contracts to Sell. — Brassel v. Troxel, 68 111. App. 131. Subscription Contracts are assignable. Valen- tine v. Berrien Springs Water-Power Co., 128 Mich. 280. A Railroad Ticket is transferable. Interna- tional, etc., R. Co. v. Ing, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 398. See generally the title Tickets and Fares. A Contract to Purchase is assignable. Liberty Wall Paper Co. v. Stoner Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 353. 1036. 2. Assignor Still Liable.— Liberty Wall Paper Co. v. Stoner Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 353; Poling v. Condon-Lane Boom, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1036. 1037. 1. Where Delectus Personse Important — England. — Griffith v. Tower Pub. Co., (1897) 1 Ch. 21, 75 L. T. N. S. 330; Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woollen System Co. v. Walker, 77 L. T. N. S. 180. United States. — American Bonding, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866 ; Bancroft v. Scribner, (C. C. A.) 72 Fed. Rep. 988 ; American Bonding, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866 ; Colton v. Raymond, 52 C. C. A. 382, 114 Fed. Rep. 863. Indiana. — Sprankle v. Trulove, 22 Ind. App. 577- Iowa. — Linn County Abstract Co. v. Beech- ley, 124 Iowa 146, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1037. Kansas. — Campbell v. Summer County, 64 Kan. 376. , Louisiana. — Grayson v. Whatley, 15 La. Ann. 525- Michigan. — Northwestern Cooperage, etc., Co. v. Byers, 133 Mich. 534, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1037; Edison v. Babka, in Mich. 235; Marquette v. Wilkinson, 119 Mich. 413. Missouri. — Lathrop v. Mayer, 86 Mo. App. 355- See also Hall v. Chitwood, 106 Mo. App. 568 ; Moore v. Thompson, 93 Mo. App. 336. West Virginia. — Poling v. Condon-Lane Boom, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 529, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1037. Contracts for Personal Services. — Northwestern Cooperage, etc., Co. v. Byers, 133 Mich. 534, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1037- Distinction Between Assigning Contract and Assigning Money Due on Contract. — Snyder v. New York, 74 N, Y. App. Div. 421. 370 Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 1037-1047 1037. 1038. See note i 1039. 1040. 1043. 1043. Besponsibility and Solvency Material. — See note 2. c Claims Against the United States — statutory Enactment. — When the Statute Applies. — See note 2. See note 2. e. BONDS — Under Modern Statutes. — See note I. /. Judgments and Decrees — At common Law. — See note i. Under the Modern Practice. — See note 4. 1044. h. Contracts of Guaranty. — See note 4. Special Contract of Guaranty. — See note 5. j. Interests in Lands — (1) Generally — As a General Euie. — See 1045. note 1. 1046. 1047. (3) Covenants — Decisions Conflicting. See notes 1, 2. See note 2. The Test. — The question of personal confi- dence must be determined from the nature of the rights themselves. Horst v. Roehm, 84 Fed. Rep. 565. 1037. 2. Besponsibility and Solvency Ma- terial. — Sims v. Cordele Ice Co., 119 Ga. 597; Tifton, etc., R. Co. v. Bedgood, 116 Ga. 945; Sprankle v. Trulove, 22 Ind. App. 577 ; Camp- bell v. Summer County, 64 Kan. 376 ; Pike v. Waltham, 168 Mass. 581 ; Jackson v. Sessions, iog Mich. 216. In Jenkins v. Columbia Land, etc., Co., 13 Wash. 502, it was held that a contract between the city water company and the city, whereby the water company was to supply water to the stations of the city's electric plant and receive pay at the end of each month, involved no ques- tion of personal trust where the city's assignee was making no claim to the benefit of that part of the contract which provided for payment at the end of each month. A Contract of Scholarship is not assignable. Butts v. McMurry, 74 Mo. App. 526. 1038. 1. Assignments Void under United States Act of 1853. — In Knut v. Nutt, 83 Miss. 365, 102 Am. St. Rep. 452, a distinction was drawn between a transfer of a one-third interest in a claim and the transfer of an amount equal to such an interest. An Assignment of Money Due on Contract, though accepted by the disbursing agent of the government, is void. Greenville Sav. Bank v. Lawrence, 42 U. S. App. 179, 76 Fed. Rep. 545. See also Ball v. Halsell, 161 U. S. 72. 1039. 2. Cases in Which Statute Does Not Apply. — Dulaney v. Scudder, 36 C. C. A. 52, 94 Fed. Rep. 6; Thayer v. Pressey, 175 Mass. 225; Leonard v. Whaley, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 304. 1040. 2. Assignment for Creditors. — Price v. Forrest, 54 N. J. Eq. 669. 1042. 1. Appeal Bonds may be assigned. Lewis v. Third St., etc., R. Co., 26 Wash. 28. 1043. 1. Judgments. — Price v. Qevenger, 99 Mo. App. 536. 4. Present Rule — Right of Assignee to Sue in His Own Name. — Price v. Clevenger, 99 Mo. App. 536. The Right to Apply for the Vacation of a Decree, given by statute, is assignable in Mississippi. Fink v. Henderson, 74 Miss. 8. 1044. 4. A Guaranty that a Contractor Will Perform His Contract, made to the receiver of a railroad, is capable of assignment by such re- ceiver upon a sale of the road. American Bond- ing, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866. 5. Special Contract of Guaranty. — American Bonding, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866 ; Schoonqver v. Osborne, 108 Iowa 453; Fricdlander v. New York Plate Glass Ins. Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 146. 1045. 1, Interests in Lands. — Fudickar v. East Riverside Irrigation Dist., 109 Cal. 29. " In the law of contracts the word ' assign- ment ' seems to be broad enough to include the transfer of an interest in lands and tenements." Tiede v. Schneidt, 105 Wis. 470. Assignments of Bounty Lands. — Montague v. McCarroll, 15 Utah 318. A Certificate of Purchase. — Bruschke v. Wright, 166 III. 183, 57 Am. St. Rep. 125; Williams 0. Donnelly, 54 Neb. 193. Bent. — Rents to accrue are assignable. Kelly v. Bo werman, 113 Mich. 446 ; Griffith v. Burlingame, 18 Wash. 429; Brownson v. Roy, 133 Mich. 617; Thomson v. Ludlum, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 801. A Bight of Entry on Land for Condition Broken. — Ohio Iron Co. v. Auburn Iron Co., 64 Minn. 404 ; Bouvier v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 281. An Entry of Land under the Desert Land Act of 1877 is assignable. Phillips v. Carter, 135 Cal. 604, 87 Am. St. Rep. 152. A Bight to Take Water from a Spring under a contract is assignable under the Texas statutes. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Cluck, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 211. Plat and Certificate of Survey. — An enterer may assign his plat and certificate of survey. King v. Coleman, 98 Tenn. 561. An Inchoate Bight by Incomplete Occupancy is an assignable interest. Rose v. Taylor, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 535. A Bight of Possession to Public Lands is assign- able. Wood v. Lowney, 20 Mont. 273. An Equity of Eedemption is assignable. Cooper v. Maurer, 122 Iowa 321. A Tax Certificate is assignable. Green v. Hell- man, 61 Neb. 875. 1046. 2. Covenants. — Wrights. Heidorn, 6 Ohio Dec. 151, 4 Ohio N. P. 124; West Vir- ginia Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Mclntire, 44 W. Va. 210. 1047. 1. Covenants of Seizin, etc., Not Assign- 3?l 1047 1055 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1047. Covenant of Warranty. — See note 3. (4) Leases. — See note 4. Restriction in Lease as to Assignment. — See note 3. (5) Mortgages ■ — Equity of Redemption. — See note 3. k. Licenses. — See note 4. See note 1. license Coupled with Interest Assignable. — See note 2. 1. Liens — (i) Generally — Common-law Rule. — See notes 3, 4. (2) Mechanics Liens. — See notes 4, 5. Right to Create or Perfect Lien Not Assignable. — See note I. V. What Constitutes an Assignment — I. Form of Assignment — a. Of Interests in Lands — Contracts to convey Lands. — See note 1. No Express Words of Assignment Necessary. — See note 5- 1055. b. Of Chattel Interests — (2) Choses in Action — (a) No Particular Form Necessary. — See note I . 1048. 1049. 1050. 1051. 1053. 1053. able. — Waters 1 v. B'agley, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. .637 ; Sears v. Broady, 66 Neb. 207 ; Geiszler v. De Graaf, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 178; Clarke v. Priest, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 501 ; Ravenal v. Ingram, 131 N. Car. 549. See also Clarke v. Priest, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 174. Compare Geiszler v. De Graaf, 166 N. Y. 339, 82 Am. St. Rep. 659. And see gen- erally the title Covenants. 1047. 2. Cases Holding Contra. — Security Bank v. Holmes, 68 Minn. 538 ; Lescaleet v. Rickner, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 422, 16 Ohio. Cir. Ct. 461 r Taylor v. Lane, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 545.. And see generally the title Covenants. 3. Covenant of Warranty Is Assignable. — Tucker v. McArthur, 103 Ga. 409 ; Beasley v. Phillips, 20 Ind. App. 182; Smith v. Ingram, 132 N. Car. 959, 95 Am. St. Rep. 680. In North Carolina a grantee in a deed con- taining a covenant of warranty cannot sever his right of action thereunder and assign it while he retains the premises. Ravenal v. Ingram, 131 N. Car. 549. Covenants of warranty and other covenants running with the land are, before a breach oc- curs, assignable in the sense that they pass with a conveyance of the land. But when a breach occurs, such covenants cease to run, and the right of action vests in the person then owning the land. McConaughey v. Bennett, 50 W. Va. 172. 4. Leases — Right of Assignment. — Rickard v. Dana, 74 Vt. 74. 1048. 3. Restriction in Lease as to Assign- ment. — Oil Creek, etc., Petroleum Co. v. Stan- ton Oil Co., 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 153; Scott v. Slaughter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 643- Assignment for Benefit of Creditors and Subse- quent Bankruptcy. — See In re Bush, 126 Fed. Rep. 878. 1049. 3. In Alabama an equity of redemp- tion is not assignable. Terry v. Allen, 132 Ala. 657- 4. Bates v. Duncan, 64 Ark. 339, 62 Am. St. Rep. 190 ; Cronin v. Sharp, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 76. 1050. 1. Bates v. Duncan, 64 Ark. 339, 62 Am. St. Rep. igo. 2. Wiseman v. Eastman, 21 Wash. 163. See also Tytus-Gardner Paper Co. v. Middletown Hydraulic Co., 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 248, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. n8. 372 3. Clarkson v. Louderback, 3,6 Fta. 660 ; Glas- cock v. Lemp, 26 Ind. App. 175. A Vendor's Lien. — Contra, Schmertz v. Ham- mond, 47 W. Va. 527. 4. Shearer v. Browne, 102 Wis. 585. 1051. 4. Wisconsin. — Shearer v. Browne, 102 Wis. 585, supporting the first paragraph of the original note. 5. Mechanic's Lien Held Assignable — Cali- fornia. — Gibbs v. Tally, (Cal. 1900) 63 Pac. Rep. 168. Colorado. — Perkins v. Boyd, 16 Colo. App. 266. Florida. — Clarkson v. Louderback, 36 Fta. 660. Indiana. — Truebl'ood v. SheHhouse, 19 Ind. App. 91. Iowa. — Peatman v. Centreville Light, etc., Co., 105 Iowa 1, 67 Am. St. Rep.. 276. Kansas. — Milwaukee Mechanics" Ins. Co. v. Brown, 3 Kan. App. 225. Massachusetts. — Wiley v. Connelly, 179 Mass. 360. Michigan. — McAllister v. Des Rachers, 132 Mich. 381. Missouri. — Ittner v. Hughes, 154 Mo. 55. Pennsylvania. — Keim u. McRoberts, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 167. Washington. — Gilmore v. Westerman, 13 Wash. 390. Laborers' Liens. — Clark v. Brown, 141 Cal. 93. 1052. I. Right to Create Lieu Not Assign- able. — Jenckes v. Jenckes, 145 Ind. 624; Zach- ary v. Perry, 130 N. Car. 289. 1053. 1. The Assignment of a Tax Certificate must be attended with the same solemnities as a deed. Wilson v. Wood, 10 Okla. 279. See also the title Verbal Agreements (Statute of Frauds), 902. 8. 5. Smithson Land Co. v. Brautigam, 16 Wash. 174. 1055. 1. England. — Re Griffin, 79 L. T. N. S. 442; Alexander v. Steinhardt, (1903) 2 K. B. 208; Palmer v. Culverwell, 85 L. T. N. S. 758. Canada. — Bayard v. Drouin, 22 Quebec Super. Ct. 420 ; Re McRae, 6 Ont. L. Rep. 238. United States. — Leonard v. Marshall, 8a Fed. Rep. 396; Clark v. Sigua Iron Co., (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 310. Colorado.— Forsyth v. Ryan, 17 Colo. App. 511. Florida. — Clarkson v. Louderback, 36 Fla. 660, Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 103« B 037 1050< The Season. -•*- See note i. Assignment by Separate Writing. — See notes 2, 3. May Be toy larol. — See note 4. 1057. See note x. Georgia. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1055 ; Van Pell v. Hurt, ■3*7 Ga. <"66o. Illinois. — Chamberlain v. Williams, 62 111. App. 423 ; Steingrebe v. French Mirror, etc., :Co.,;83 dll. App. 987. Indiana. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Country- man, 16 Ind. App. 139. Iowa. — Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464. Kentucky. — Beard v. Sharp, (Ky. 1901) 65 'S. W.Rep. 810. Maine. — Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422 ; Har- low v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294, 90 Am. St. Rep. 346. .Michigan. — Hovey v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 398. Minnesota. — Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41. Mississippi. — Harris v. Hazlehurst Gil Mill, etc., Co., 78 Miss. 603. Missouri. — Maoklin v. Kinealy, 141 Mo. 113, xdting-z Am. mdEjig. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1055; Sanguinett v. Webster, 153 Mo. 343, citing 2 Am. and > Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) i°55- New Jersey. — Weaver v. Atlantic Roofing Cou, 57 N. J. Eq. 547 ; Seyfried v. Stoll, .56 N. J. Eq. 187 ; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. New York. — Crocker v. Muller, (Supm. Ct. App. ,T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 685. Oregon. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Port- land, 37 Oregon 33. Pennsylvania. — Hercules Ice Mach. Co. v. Segal, 185 Pa. St. 605 ; Caulfield v. Van Brunt, 173 Pa. St. 428. Texas. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Ginther, 96 Tex. 295. Virginia. — • Tatum v. Ballard, 94 Va. 370. West Virginia. — Bentley u. Standard F. Ins. Co., 140 W. Va. 729. • Wisconsin. — Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500. An Assignment of " Money Due " does not com- .ipirehend money which has only a potential ex- istence. Ryan v. Douglas County, 47 Neb. 9. ^Assignment by legatee. — A mortgage by a alegatee on land which is in the hands of an ex- ecutor, who is to convert the land into money :and pay: certain .legacies, is an equitable assign- ment of his legacy. Pollock's Estate, 20 Pa. i--6o. Ct. 333. J)eKveryof .a Certificate of Stock coupled with an indorsed blank, assignment is a valid assign- ■nnent. . Britrtan v. 1 Oakland Sav. Bank, 124 Cal. 282, 71 Am. St. Rep. 58. A Mistake in the Same of the Debtor is imma- terial. Colorado School Land Leasing, etc., Go. •a.rPonick,n6 Colo. App. 478. 1056. 1. Beard v. Sharp, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. iWI Rep?8io ; Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422. 2. Separate Writing. — > Baylor v. Butterf ass, ->82 Minn. 21. 3. Assignment by Indorsement — Adams v. Goodwin, 99 Ga. 138. isAn Assignment of anflAocount. — See' Union Iron WaricS Co. vi Kilgore, 651. Minn. 497. Indorsement of a Mortgage is an equitahle as- signment. ,Mallory v. Mallory, 86 111. App. 193. 4. Parol Assignments — Colorado. — Forsyth v. Ryan, 17 Colo. App. 511. District of Columbia. — Dexter v. Gordon, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 60. •Illinois. — Mason v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 77 111. App. 19. Iowa. — Seymour v. Aultman, 109 Iowa 297, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1056 ; Tone v. Shankland, no Iowa 525 ; Preston v. Peterson, 107 Iowa 244. Kentucky. — Beard v. Sharp, (Ky. 1901) 65 :S. W. Rep. 810. Maine. — Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422 ; Har- low v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294, 90 Am. St. Rep. 346- Michigan. — ■ Harris v. Chamberlain, 136 Mich. 280. Minnesota. — Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41. Missouri. — • Price v. Morning Star Min. Co., 83 Mo. App. 470, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1056; Boyle v. Clark, 63 Mo. App. 473 ; Whiteside v. Longacre, 88 Mo. App. i68> Montana. — • Oppenheimer v. Butte First Nat. Bank, 20 Mont. 192. New Hampshire. — Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 356. New Jersey. — Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543- New York. — Liberty Wall Paper Co. v. Stoner Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 353 ; Hanes v. Sackett, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 61.0; Epstein v. U. S. Fidelity, etc, Co., (:Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 295. North Dakota. — Roberts v. Fargo First Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. .474. Ohio. — Gamble v. Carlisle, 6 Ohio Dec. 48, 3 Ohio N. P. 279. Tennessee. — Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192 ; Box v. Lanier, (Tenn. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1042. West Virginia. — Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473, •quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1056 ; McConaughey v. 'Bennett, 50 W. Va. 172, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1056 ; Bentley v. Standard F. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729. Wisconsin. — Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500. Canada. — Heyd v. Millar, 29 Ont. 735 ; Todd v. Phoenix, 3 British Columbia 302 ; Trusts Corp. v. Rider, 27 Ont. 593. An Insurance Policy may be assigned by parol. Lockett v. Lockett, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1152; Barnett v. Prudential Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. App. Div. 435. A Right to a Patent may be assigned by parol. Cook v. .Sterling Electric Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 45 ; Pressed Steel Car Co.i\ Hansen, 128 Fed. Rep. 444. The Mere Right to Locate a Mining -Claim may be assigned by parol. • Doe -v. Waterloo Min. Co., 44 U: S.'App. ,204, 7o*Fed. Rep. 455. 1057. 1. Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 373 1057-1059 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. n. 1057. 1058. 1059. Where Instrument Assigned Is under Seal. — See notes 2, 3. Delivery of Evidence of Debt. — '■ See note 4. Delivery Not Essential Where There Is No Written Evidence of Debt. — See note 2. Debt Existing in an Open Account Assignable Without Delivery. — See note 3. Delivery Necessary Where There Is a Note or Other Written Obligation. — See notes 1, 2. Qualification of Rule. — See note 3. (b) Operation of Some Particular Forms as Assignments • nated Fund. — See note 4. 543 ; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473. quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1056 [1057]. Assignment of Account. — See Wilt v. Huff- man, 46 W. Va. 473. In Georgia. — Kirkland v. Dryfus, 103 Ga. 127. See also Foster v. Sutlive, 'no Ga. 297; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Brunswick Grocery Co., 113 Ga. 786; Steele v. Gatlin, 115 Ga. 929. 1057. 2. McConaughey v. Bennett, 50 W. Va. 172, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1057. 3. A Judgment may be assigned without a writing in California. Smith v. Peck, 128 Cal. 527. But in Georgia the rule is otherwise. Jones v. High tower, 117 Ga. 749. 4. Delivery of Evidence of Debt. — Marsh -u. Garney, 69 N. H. 236. See also Richie v. Cralle, 108 Ky. 483. An Insurance Policy may be assigned orally or by delivery. State v. Tomlinson, 16 Ind. App. 662, 59 Am. St. Rep. 335 ; German-Ameri- can Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 17 Ind. App. 134 ; West- ern Assur. Co. v. McCarty, 18 Ind. App. 449. 1058. 2. Trueblood v. Shellhouse, 19 Ind. App. 91 ; Ebel v. Piehl, 134 Mich. 64; Kenneweg v. Schilansky, 45 W. Va. 521, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1058; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1058. 3. Seymour v. Aultman, 109 Iowa 297, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1058; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1058. 1059. 1. Assignments of Notes and Written Obligations. — See Hunt v. Bode, 66 Ohio St. 255- Equitable Assignment of Bond. — A contract to deliver bonds must be absolute and not al- ternative or indefinite in order for an equitable interest to pass. Badgerow v. Manhattan Trust Co., 74 Fed. Rep. 925. A Tax Certificate may be assigned by indorse- ment and delivery. Green v. Hellman, 61 Neb. 875. 2. An Assignment Indorsed on a Policy and a notation on the books of the company, though no delivery, will constitute an assignment. In re Scully, 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 307. 3. Delivery of Separate Paper of Assignment. — Hilton v. Woodman, 124 Mich. 326. Promissory Note. — Cortelyou v. Jones, (Cal. 1900) 61 Pac. Rep. 918. 4. Order on Particular Fund as Assignment — United States. — Fourth St. Bank v. Yardley, 165 U. S. 634 ; The Elmbank, 72 Fed. Rep. 610 ; Fortier v. Delgado, (C. C. A.) 122 Fed. Rep. 604 ; Philadelphia Third Nat. Bank v. Atlantic City, 126 Fed. Rep. 413; In re Hanna, 105 Fed. Rep. 587. -aa. Order on Desig- Colorado. — Central Nat. Bank v. Spratlen, 7 Colo. App. 430. Georgia. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1059. Illinois. — Schwartz v. Messinger, 167 111. 474; Dolese v. McDougall, 182 111. 486, affirm- ing 78 111. App. 629. Iowa. — Foss v. Cobler, 105 Iowa 728. Kansas. — Continental Ins. Co. v. Pratt, 8 Kan. App. 424. Maine. — Jenness v. Wharff, 87 Me. 307. Minnesota. — Brady v. Chadbourne, 68 Minn. 117. Montana. — State v. Conrow, 19 Mont. 104; Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335, 56 Am. St. Rep. 586. Nebraska. — Nebraska Moline Plow Co. v. Fuehring, 60 Neb. 316; Ryani\ Douglas County, 47 Neb. 9. New Hampshire. — Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 356. New Jersey. — Weaver v. Atlantic Roofing Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 547 ; Goldengay v. Smith, 62 N. J. Eq. 354; Binns v. Slingerland, 55 N. J. Eq. 55- ' New York. — See Lawrence v. Congregational Church, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 489 ; People v. Westchester County, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 135 ; Izzo v. Ludington, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 272 ; Jaffe v. Bowery Bank, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 778; Danvers v. Lugar, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 98; Hafner v. Kirby, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 390 ; McDonald v. Ballston Spa, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 496; Curtis Bros. Lumber Co. v. McLoughlin, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 636 ; Brace v. Gloversville, 167 N. Y. 452. Oregon. — Willard v. Bullen, 41 Oregon 25. Pennsylvania. — Beaumont v. Lane, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 73. South Carolina. — McGahan v. Lockett, 54 S. Car. 364, 71 Am. St. Rep. 796. Tennessee. — Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1059; Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. Texas. — Beaumont Lumber Co. v. Moore, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 180; Neely v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513. Utah. — Board of Education v. Salt Lake Pressed Brick Co., 13 Utah 211. Virginia. — Chesapeake Classified Bldg. Assoc. v. Coleman, 94 Va. 433 ; Hicks v. Roanoke Brick Co., 94 Va. 741. Washington. — Dowliiig v. Seattle, 22 Wash. 592 ; Dickerson v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 292. 374 Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 1060-1065 1060. See note I. Actual Existence of Fund Unnecessary. — See note 2. 1061. See note I. Where Order Is Given to Agent. — See note 2. 1062. id. Bill of Exchange — When Accepted. — See note 2. When Not Accepted. — See note 3. 1063. Where a Particular Fund for Reimbursement Is Designated. — See note I. 1065. cc. Check — Doctrine in Some Jurisdictions. — See notes I, 3. Prevailing Doctrine. — See note 5. West Virginia. — Stevenson v. Kyle, 42 W. Va. 229, 57 Am. St. Rep. 854. Canada. — Quick v. Colchester South Tp., 30 Ont. 645. Order to Be Paid Out of Wages. — See Brewer v. Griesheimer, 104 111. App. 323; Harlow v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294, 90 Am. St. Rep. 346. 1060. 1. Effect as to Drawee. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, quot- ing 2 Am. and Eng. En cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1060 ; Brady v. Chadbourne, 68 Minn. 117 ; Mer- chants', etc., Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 335, 56 Am. St. Rep. 586 ; Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 356; Curtis Bros. Lumber CoT v. McLough- lin, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 636 ; Beaumont v. Lane, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 73 ; Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1060 ; Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. See also Lawrence v. Congre- gational Church, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 489. 2. Fund Need Not Have Actual Existence. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1060; Central Nat. Bank v. Spratlen, 7 Colo. App. 430 ; Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 18 Mont. 33s, 56 Am. St. Rep. 586 ; Ryan v. Douglas County, 47 Neb. 9 ; Omaha v. Standard Oil Co., 55 Neb. 337; Thomas v. Schumacher, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 441 ; Gamble v. Carlisle, 6 Ohio Dec. 48, 3 Ohio N. P. 279 ; Wadhams v. Inman, 38 Oregon 143 ; Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192; Beaumont Lumber Co. v. Moore, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 180 ; Board of Educa- tion v. Salt Lake Pressed Brick Co., 13 Utah an; Chesapeake Classified Bldg. Assoc, v. Coleman, 94 Va. 433. 1061. 1. Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1061 ; Board of Edu- cation v. Salt Lake Pressed Brick Co., 13 Utah 211. 2. Mere Delivery of Order to Agent. — Adams's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 444. 1062. 2. See Gamble v. Carlisle, 6 Ohio Dec. 48, 3 Ohio N. P. 279. 3. Bill of Exchange When Not Accepted. — Dexter v. Gordon, n App. Cas. (D. C.) 60; Fulton v. Gesterding, (Fla. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 56; Talladega Mercantile Co. v. Robinson, etc., Co., 96 Ga. 815; Kyle v. Chattahoochee Nat. Bank, 96 Ga. 693 ; Johnson-Brinkman Commis- sion Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 437; Seyfried v. Stoll, 56 N. J. Eq. 187; Mc- Donald v. Ballston Spa, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 496; Izzo v. Ludington, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 272 ; Curtis Bros. Lumber Co. v. McLoughlin, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 636 ; Erick- son v. Inman, 34 Oregon 44; Allison v. Pearce, (Term. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. Contrary View. — See National City Bank v. Gardner, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 229, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 139. 1063. 1. Fund for Reimbursement Desig- nated. — Gamble v. Carlisle, 6 Ohio Dec. 48, 3 Ohio N. P. 279 ; Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. 1065. 1. As Between Drawer and Payee. — Brown v. Schintz, 202 111. 509 ; Abt v. Ameri- can Trust, etc., Bank, 159 111. 467, 50 Am. St. Rep. 175; Staninger v. Tabor, 103 111. App. 330; Henderson v. U. S. National Bank, 59 Neb. 280 ; Neely v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513 ; Dillman v. Carlin, 105 Wis. 14, 76 Am. St. Rep. 902. See also the title Checks, 1065. ^. et seq. As Between Checkholder and Assignee of Insol- vent Drawer. — Raesser v. National Exch. Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979. As Between Payee and Drawer and Subsequent Assignee. ■ — See Doty v. Caldwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1025. 3. Payee's Right to Maintain Action at Law Against Drawee. — Thomas v. Exchange Bank, 99 Iowa 202; Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156; Columbia Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 56 Neb. 803 ; Henderson v . U. S. National Bank, 59 Neb. 280; Doty v. Caldwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1025. Check for Greater Amount than Deposit. — See Rouse v. Calvin, 76 111. App. 362 ; Henderson v. U. S. National Bank, 59 Neb. 280. S. Prevailing Doctrine in United States — United States. — Fourth St. Bank v. Yardley, 165 U. S. 634; "Fortier v. Delgado, (C. C. A.) 122 Fed. Rep. 604. Alabama. — Hanchey v. Hurley, 129 Ala. 306. California. — Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 138 Cal. 183, 94 Am. St. Rep. 28. Georgia. — Georgia Seed Co. v. Talmadge, 96 Ga. 254; Reviere v. Chambliss, 120 Ga. 714. Michigan. — Sunderlin v. Mecosta County Sav. Bank, 116 Mich. 281. Missouri. — ■ Dowell v. Vandalia Banking Assoc, 62 Mo. App. 482. New York. — McDonald v. Ballston Spa., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 496. Ohio. — Voorhes v. Hesket, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 1. Oklahoma. — Guthrie Nat. Bank v. Gill, 6 Okla. 560. Tennessee. — ■ Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 44a. Texas. — House v. Kountze, 1 7 Tex. Civ. App. 403. 375 1067 1070 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1067. 1068. 1069. 107©. dd. Power of Attorney — Where It Is Coupled with an Interest. — See note I. ee. Mere Executory Agreement to Appropriate. — See notes 2, 3. (c) Partial Assignments — Rule at Law. — See note I. Thus an Order. — -See note 2. The Season of This Principle. — See note I. Bule in Equity. — See note 2. Wisconsin. — Raesser v. National Exch. Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979. See also the title Checks, 1061. 2. et seg. As Between Payee and Attaching Creditor.— Mclntyre v. Farmers, etc., Bank, 115 Mich. 255, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1065. Payee's Right to Sue Drawee. — Fourth St. Bank v. Yardley, 165 U. S. 634; Reviere u. Chambless, 120 Ga. 714. Missouri. — Where the check is for the ex- act amount of the balance, it is held to con- stitute an assignment. Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co., 77 Mo. App. 493- 1067. 1. National Bank of Republic v. United Security L. Ins., etc., Co., 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 112; Sanborn v. Maxwell, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245. 1068. 2. Cushing v. Chapman, 115 Fed. Rep. 237 ; Rufe v. Commercial Bank, 40 C. C. A. 27, 99 Fed. Rep. 650 ; Nebraska Moline Flow Co. v. Fuehring, 60 Neb. 316; Fairbanks v. Welshans, 55 Neb. 362; Donovan v. Middle- brook, 95 N. -Y. App. Div. 365 ; Netling v. Net- ling, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; Commercial Nat. Bank 11. Portland, 37 Oregon 33 ; Spooner v. Hilbish, 92 Va. 333. See also Coppock v. Kuhn, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 347- 3. Executory Agreement to Pay Out of Particu- lar Pund — England. — Durham v. Robertson, (1898) 1 Q. B. 765, 67 L. J. Q B. 484- United States. — Cushing v. Chapman, 115 Fed. Rep. 237; Commercial Bank v. Rufe, 92 Fed. Rep. 789, 40 C. C. A. 27, 99 Fed. Rep. 650. Alabama. — Hanchey v. Hurley, 129 Ala. 306. Georgia. — .Reviere v. Chambless, 120 Ga. 714; Bluthenthal v. Silverman, 113 Ga. 102; Hargett v. McCadden, 107 Ga. 773. Illinois. — Kelley v. Newman, 79 111. App. 285. Iowa. — Foss v. Cobler, 105 Iowa 728. Nebraska. — Nebraska Moline Plow Co. v. Fuehring, 60 Neb. 316; Fairbanks v. Welshans, 55 Neb. 362; Phillips v. Hogue, 63 Neb. 192. New York. — Matter of Shaf er, ( Surrogate Ct.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 371 ; Donovan v. Middle- brook, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 365 ; Netling v. Net- ling, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; Randel u. Van- derbilt, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 313; Wemple v. Hauenstein, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 552; Addison v. Enoch, 48 N. Y. App. Div. it I. Oregon. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Port- land, 37 Oregon 33- Virginia. — Hicks v. Roanoke Brick Co., 94 Va. 741. Contra, Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn; Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. English Doctrine. — West v. Newing, 82 L. T. N. S. 260. 1069. 1. Claim for Wages. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 296; Whit- comb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75. Judgments. — Lewis v. Third St., etc., R. Co., 26 Wash. 28. Where Equity Is Administered in Courts of Law. — Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543- 2. Order for Part of Fund — United States. — The Elmbank, 72 Fed. Rep. 610. Alabama. — Andrews v. Frierson, 134 Ala. 626. Colorado. — McMurray v. Marsh, 12 Colo. App. 95. Georgia. — Rivers v. Wright, 117 Ga. 81, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1069; Reviere v. Chambless, 120 Ga. 714. Kentucky. — Columbia Finance, etc., Co. V . First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1069. Maine. — Whitcomb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75. Missouri. — Dowell v. Vandalia Banking Assoc, 62 Mo. App. 482 ; Conn v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 66 Mo. App. 483 ; Kiddoo v. Ames, 73 Mo. App. 667. Ohio. — Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v.. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362. Oregon. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Port- land, 37 Oregon 33. West Virginia. — St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1069. Wisconsin. — Dugan v. Knapp, 105 Wis. 320; Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122. Where Debtor Assents to Assignment. — Alli- son v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. Where No Injury Can Accrue to the Debtor, the assignment will be held valid. Evans v. Durango Land, etc., Co., 49 U. S. App. 320, 80 Fed. Rep. 433 ; Colorado School Land Leas- ing, etc., Co. v. Ponick, 16 Colo. App. 478. Equitable Doctrine Recognized in Courts of Law, — ■ Chambers v. Lancaster, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 215; King v. King, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 128. An assignment of a part of the proceeds of a judgment will be recognized and enforced in a court of law by virtue of the control of such courts over their own proceedings, judg- ments, and process. Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. 1070. 1. The Elmbank, 72 Fed. Rep. 610; Rivers v. Wright, 117 Ga. 81, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1070; Whit- comb v. Waterville, 99 Me. 75 ; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362 ; McMurray v. Marsh, 12 Colo. App. 95; Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192; St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1070; Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122; Dugan v. Knapp, 105 Wis. 320. 2. Rule in Equity — United States. — Fourth St. Bank v. Yardley, 165 U. S. 634; The Elm- bank, 72 Fed. Rep. 610. Georgia. — Rivers v. Wright, 117 Ga. 81, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1070. Kentucky. — Columbia Finance, etc., Co. »• 376 Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 1073-1076 1072. Check as Assignment Fro Tanto. — See note 3. 1073. See note 1. 2. The Consideration — Choses in Action at Between Assignor and Assign**. — See note 7. 1074. See note 1. 1075. Security of Debt as Consideration. — See note 2. As Between Assignee and Party Liable for Chose in Action Assigned. — See note 5. 1070. 3. Notice- — Choses in Action as Between Assignor and Assignee. — See note 1. As Between Assignor's Creditor and Assignee. — See note 2. First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1070. New Jersey. — Todd v. Meding, 56 N. J. Eq. 83. New York. — Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N. Y. 342. Ohio. — Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362. Oregon. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Port- land, 37 Oregon 33. Tennessee. — Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192; Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442. Texas. — Doty v. Caldwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1025; Harris County v. Donaldson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 9. West Virginia. — St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1069 [1070] ; McConaughey v. Bennett, 50 W. Va. 172. Wisconsin. — Baillie v. Stephenson, 95 Wis. 500. Opposing Doctrine in Some Jurisdictions. — Kiddoo v. Ames, 73 Mo. App. 667 ; Dowell u . Vandalia Banking Assoc, 62 Mo. App. 482. 1072. 3. Checks. — Sunderlin -v. Mecosta County Sav. Bank, 116 Mich. 281; Dowell v. Vandalia Banking Assoc, 62 Mo. App. 482. 1073. 1» In Equity. — Raesser v. National Exch. Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979. Consent of Bank Implied. — In Texas it has been held that in the case of a check drawn on a deposit in a bank, the consent of the bank to such partial assignment is implied. Doty v. Caldwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1025. 7. Consideration as Between Assignor and As- signee. — Waterman v. Merrow, 94 Me. 237; Taber v. Wagner, 10 N. Dak. 287. 1074. 1. Consideration Necessary to Make Order Operative as Assignment. — Shaw v. Tonns, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 39 ; Moffatt v. Bailey, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 632. 1075. 2. Security of Debt as Consideration. — Bleakley v. Nelson, 56 N. J. Eq. 674; Coch- rane v. Hyre, 49 W. Va. 315, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1075. S. As Between Assignee and Party Liable for Chose in Action Assigned. — Robinson Reduction Co. v. Johnson, 10 Colo. App. 135; Forsyth v. Ryan, 17 Colo. App. 511; Phipps v. Bacon, 183 Mass. 5; Hicks v. Steele, 126 Mich. 408; Coe v. Hinkley, rog Mich. 608 ; Roth v. Con- tinental Wire Co., 94 Mo. App. 236 ; Rosenthal v. Rudnick, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 519 ; Grey v . Craighead, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 463 ; Toplitz v. King Bridge Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 576; Van Dyke v. Gardner, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 113; Walcott v. Hilman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 459 ; Gregoire v. Rourke, 28 Oregon 275 ; Chase v. Dodge, 1 1 1 Wis. 70. Where Chose in Action Was Assigned for Collec- tion. — Wiesener v. Rackow, 76 L. T. N. S. 448. 1076. 1. Notice — As Between Assignor and Assignee. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1076; Columbia Fi- nance, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156; Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134. 2. As Between Assignee and Creditors of As- signor — United States. — Philadelphia Third Nat. Bank v. Atlantic City, 126 Fed. Rep. 413; Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. Rep. 192. California. — Mclntyre v. Hauser, 131 Cal. 11. Colorado. — Colorado Fuel, etc, Co. v. Kid- well, (Colo. App. 1904) 76 Pac Rep. 922. District of Columbia. — Hutchinson v. Brown, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 157. Georgia. — Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 81 Am. St. Rep. 77, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1076. Illinois. — Knight v. Griffey, 161 111. 85; Williams v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 199 111. 57- Kentucky. — Beard v. Sharp, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 810. Maine. — Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422. Michigan. — Blumenthal v. Simons, no Mich. 42. Minnesota. — Union Iron Works Co. v. Kil- gore, 65 Minn. 497. Mississippi. — Harris v . Hazlehurst Oil Mill, etc., Co., 78 Miss. 603. Missouri. — Hendrickson v. Trenton Nat. Bank, 81 Mo. App. 332. Montana. — State v. Conrow, 19 Mont. 104; Oppenheimer v. Butte First Nat. Bank, 20 Mont. 192. New Hampshire. — Marsh v. Garney, 69 N. H. 236 ; Glauber Mfg. Co. *>. Voter, 71 N. H.68. New Jersey. — Kafes v. McPherson, (N. J. '895) 32 Atl. Rep. 710. New York. — Columbia Bank v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 594 ; Niles v. Mathusa, (County Ct.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 96. Pennsylvania. — Phillipps's Estate, 205 Pa, St. 525, 97 Am. St. Rep. 750 ; Bechtel v. Lauer Brewing Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 440. Washington. — Griffith v. Burlingame, 1$ 377 1077-1079 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1077. Authorities in United States Conflicting — English Enle Adopted in Some Jurisdictions. — See notes 2, 3. Bule in Other Jurisdictions. — See note 4. As Between the Debtor and Assignee. — See note 6. 1078. See note 1. 1079. Character of Notice Eequired. — See notes I, 2. VI. Effect of Assignment — 1. Generally. — See note 4. Wash. 429 ; Bellingham Bay Boom Co. u. Bris- bois, 14 Wash. 173. As Between ssigAnee and Attaching Creditor. — See Reinecke v. Gruner, n 1 Iowa 731. Contrary View in Some Jurisdictions. — Rodes v. Haynes, 95 Tenn. 673. 1077. 2. In the Federal Courts. — Philadel- phia Third Nat. Bank v. Atlantic City, 126 Fed. Rep. 413. 3. States Adopting English Bule. — Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke, 124 Cal. 117, 71 Am. St. Rep. 26 ; Enochs-Havis Lumber Co. v. New- comb, 79 Miss. 462, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1077 ; Houser v. Rich- ardson, 90 Mo. App. 134; Gamble v. Carlisle, 6 Ohio Dec. 48, 3 Ohio N. P. 279. See also Monticello Sav. Bank v. Stuart, 73 Mo. App. 279. 4. States Rejecting English Rule. — Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, (Ky. '903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156; Central Trust Co. v. West India Imp. Co., 169 N. Y. 314; Fortu- nate v. Patten, 147 N. Y. 277. See Colum- bia Bank v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 594. 6., As Between Debtor and Assignee — United States. — Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. Fed. 292. California. — Graham Paper Co. v. Pem- broke, 124 Cal. 117, 71 Am. St. Rep. 26. Illinois. - — Vance v. Hickman, 95 111. App. 554; Sheldon v. McNall, 89 111. App. 138. Kansas. — Chapman v. Steiner, 5 Kan. App. 326; Lockrow v. Cline, 4 Kan. App. 716. Kentucky. — Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 156; Com. v. Burnett, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 966. Maine. — Howe v. Howe, 97 Me. 422. Minnesota. — Nielsen v. Albert Lea, 91 Minn. 388. New Jersey. — Miller v. Stockton, 64 N. J. L. 614. New York. — Smith v. Kissel, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 235. See also Lawrence v. Congrega- tional Church, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 489. Ohio. — Clark u. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 Ohio Dec. 173. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Sides, 176 Pa. St. 616; May v. Newingham, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 469. Tennessee. — Allison v. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Eldredge, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 556, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed/) 1077. Wisconsin. — Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122. Canada. — Maple Leaf Rubber Co. v. Brodie, 18 Quebec Super. Ct. 352. 1078. 1. United States. — Harriaburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 669 ; Blackford v. Westchester F. Ins. Co., 41 C. C. A. 226, 101 Fed. Rep. 90. Alabama. — Ivy Coal, etc., Co. v. Long, 139 Ala. 535. California. — McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land, etc., Co., no Cal. 687. Louisiana. — Sintes v. Commerford, 112 La. 706. Minnesota. — Cornish, etc., Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493. Mississippi. — See American Surety Co. v. U. S., 76 Miss. 289. Missouri. — Ferguson v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 664. New York. — Ernst v. Estey Wire Works Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 365; Matter of Whitbeck; (Surrogate Ct.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 494. Ohio. — Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362. Texas. — ■ Raywood Rice Canal, etc., Co. -u. Langford, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 401 ; Maxwell v. Urban, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 565. Wisconsin. — Frels v. Little Black Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 120 Wis. 590. Canada. — Quick v. Colchester South. Tp., 30 Ont. 645. Also a Judgment Debtor. — Seymour v. Ault- man, 109 Iowa 297. 1079. 1. Character of Notice Required. — Phillips's Estate, 205 Pa. St. 525, 97 Am. St. Rep. 750; Allisons. Pearce, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 192. See also Sintes v. Com- merford, 112 La. 706; Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122. Placing Judgment [Assignment] upon Files of Court. — Steiner v. Scholze, 114 Ala. 88; Mil- ler v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 Qhio St. 374 ; Clark v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 Ohio Dec. 173; Yonkers v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 18 Lane. L. Rev. 84, 14 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 176. Notice to One of a Board of Three Commissioners is notice to the board. Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442. Institution of an Action has been held to be a sufficient signification of the assignment of a chose in action. Toronto Bank v. St. Law- rence F. Ins. Co., (1903) A. C..59. 2. Cochrane v. Hyre, 49 W. Va. 315. 4. United States. — In re Campbell, 102 Fed. Rep. 686 ; McPherson v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 58 C. C. A. 455, 122 Fed. Rep. 367. Colorado. — People v. Rio Grande County, 1 1 Colo. App. 124. Illinois. — Second Borrowers, etc., Bldg. Assoc, v. Cochrane, 103 111. App. 29; Brown v. Morgan, 84 111. App. 233. Iowa. — Boggs v. Douglass, 105 Iowa 344. Louisiana. — Dannenmann v. Charlton, 113 La. 276. Michigan. — U. S. Casualty Co. v. Bagley, 129 Mich. 70, 95 Am. St. Rep. 424. 378 Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 1080-1084 1080. 2. Assignee Takes Subject to Equities — a. Generally. — See note i. 1081. b. Latent Equities of Third Persons — NonnegotiaMo securities. — See note i . 1083. New York Doctrine. — See note I. 1084. 3. What Passes by Assignment — a. Generally. — See notes 3, 4. Minnesota. — Brady v. Chadbourne, 68 Minn. 117. Mississippi. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 83 Miss. 224. New York. — Hand v. Brooks, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 489 ; Culmer v. American Grocery Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 556 ; Jones v. Savage, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 158. Ohio. — Meyerfeld v. Strube, 9 Ohio Dec. 514- Oklahoma. — Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 9 1 . Pennsylvania. — Cole v. Taylor, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 19. Texas. — Muscogee First Nat. Bank v. Camp- bell, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 160. Utah. — McCornick v. Sadler, 14 Utah 463. Canada. — Meriden Brittania Co. v. Bowell, 4 British Columbia 520. 1080. 1. Choses in Action — Generally — United States. — Uehling v. Lyon, 134 Fed. Rep. 703, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1080 ; Church v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 526 ; Cronin v. Patrick County, 89 Fed. Rep. 79. California. — San Jose Ranch Co. v. San Jose Land, etc., Co., 132 Cal. 582; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681. , Colorado. — Whitehead v. Jessup, 7 Colo. App. 460 ; Meldrum v. Henderson, 7 Colo. App. 256. Georgia. — Atlanta Third Nat. Bank v. West- ern, etc., R. Co., 114 Ga. 890; Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599. Idaho. — Northwestern, etc., Bank v. Rauch, 8 Idaho 50. Illinois. — Anderson v. South Chicago Brew- ing Co., 173 111. 213; Bouton v. Cameron, 205 111. 50; Pearson v. Luecht, 199 111. 475; Beb- ber v. Moreland, 100 111. App. 198; Bouton v. Cameron, 99 111. App. 600 ; Hahn v. Geiger, 96 111. App. 104; Hass v. Lobstein, 108 111. App. 217; Elser v. Williams, 104 111. App. 238 ; Whiting Paper Co. v. Busse, 95 111. App. 288 ; Yarnell v. Brown, 65 111. App. 83 ; Chi- cago Title, etc., Co. v. Aff, 84 111. App. 552 ; Denison v. Gambill, 81 111. App. 170; Faris v. Briscoe, 78 111. App. 242. Indiana. — Anthony v. Masters, 28 Indr App. 239; Frankel v. Garrard, 160 Ind. 209. Iowa. — • Thomas -0. Exchange Bank, 99 Iowa 202; Shambaugh v. Current, m Iowa 121. Kansas. — City Nat. Bank v. Gunter, 67 Kan. 227. Kentucky. — Murray v. Duffy, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1038; Shuttleworth v. Kentucky Coal, etc., Co., 60 S. W. Rep. 534, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1341 ; Casteel v. Baugh, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 996 ; Pickering v. Beckner, (Ky. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 148 ; Hefferman v. Brierly, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 852; Bitzer v. Mercke, 111 Ky. 299. See also Richie v. Cralle, 108 Ky. 483. Louisiana. — Pertuit v. Damare, 50 La. Ann. 893- , Maryland. — Goldman v. Brinton, 90 Md. 259. M innesota. — Mofifett v. Parker, 71 Minn. 139, 70 Am. St. Rep. 319. Mississippi. — Harris v. Hazlehurst Oil Mill, etc., Co., 78 Miss. 603. Nebraska. — Williams u. Donnelly, 54 Neb. 193, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1080 ; Hoover v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 58 Neb. 420 ; Lewis v. Holdrege, 56 Neb. 379. New York. — Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N. Y. 342 ; Central Trust Co. v. West India Imp. Co., 169 N. Y. 314; Sparling v. Wells, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 584 ; Merkle v. Beidleman, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 14; Culmer v. American Grocery Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 556 ; Bernheimer v. Prince, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) '27 Misc. (N. Y.) 831 ; Parmerter v. Colrick, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 202; Colton Imp. Co. v. Richter, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 26 ; Wood v. Travis, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 589. North Carolina. — Ricaud v. Alderman, 132 N. Car. 62. Oklahoma. — Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91. Pennsylvania. — Myerstown Bank v. Roess- ler, 186 Pa. St. 431 ; Galey v. Mellon, 172 Pa. St. 443; Carothers v. Sims, 194 Pa. St. 386; Stockes v. Dewees, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 471 ; Bart- lett v. Loomis, 16 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 205, 14 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 120. South Carolina. — Westbury v. Simmons, 57 S. Car. 467. Tennessee. — ■ Brannon v. Curtis, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 53 S. W. Rep. 234. Texas. — Tyler Car, etc., Co. v. Wettermark, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 399; Maxwell -u. Urban, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 56s ; Ellis v. Kerr, 1 1 Tex. Civ. App. 349 ; National Oil, etc., Co. v. Teel, 95 Tex. 586. West Virginia. — Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234. 10§1. 1. Latent Equities as to Nonnegotiable Instruments. — Williams v. Donnelly, 54 Neb. 193, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Wright v. Snell, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 308, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 86 ; Boyer u. Webber, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 35. 1083. 1. New York Doctrine. — See Dodge v. Manning, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 29 ; Culmer v. American Grocery Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 556; Central Trust Co. u. West India Imp. Co., 169 N. Y. 314; Avrutin v. Hensel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 160; Groff v. Friedline, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 352; Bernheimer v. Prince, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 308. The assignee of a mortgage takes it subject to the latent equities of third persons. Mertens v. Wakefield, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) soi. 1084. 3. All Assignor's Interest Passes to Assignee. — Coonrod v. Kelly, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 841 ; Tripod Paint Co. v. Hamilton, in Ga. 823 ; Kreider v. Fanning, 74 111. App. 230. 379 1085-1088 ASSIGNMENTS, Vol. it. 1©85. b. MORTGAGES — (i) Mortgages ofLand—(i) tegal AsrtffnfliMrt — it Assignment of Mortgage Without the Debt. — See note 3. 1086. (b) Equitable Assignment — aa. Assignment of Mortgage by Transfer of Debt. — See note 3. „ 1087. W. Assignment of Mortgage Without Transfer of Debt. — bee note I. ( 2 ) Chattel Mortgages — Assignment of Mortgage Without Debt Brtttei. — See note 3 1088. Assignment of Debt Alone. — See note 4. (3) Partial Assignments — Chattel Mortgages. — See note 2. 4. Rights of Parties — a. Of the Assignee — (2) Against the Assignor — (a) Assignor loses Control by Assignment. — See note 5. 1084. 4. Assignment of Debt Carries Remedy California. — "Warren v. Russell, 129 Cal. 381 ; Heisen v. Smith, 138 Cal. 216, 94 Am. St. Rep. 39- Georgia. — Tripod Paint Co. v. Hamilton, 1 1 1 Ga. 823 ; Van Pelt v. Hurt, 98 Ga. 660. Illinois. — Fogle v. Beck, 106 111. App. 420. Indiana. — Hawkins v. New York Fourth Nat. Bank, 150 Ind. 117, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1084; Trueblood v. Shellhouse, 19 Ind. App. 91 ; Mulky v. Karsell, 31 Ind. App. 595. Minnesota. ■ — Spoon v. Frambach, 83 Minn. 301 ; Woodland Co. v. Mendenhall, 82 Minn. 483, 83 Am. St. Rep. 445. Mississippi. — Ross-Meehan Brake Shoe Foundry Co. v. Pascagoula Ice Co., 72 Miss. 608. New Jersey. — Wimpfheimer v. Perrine, 61 N. J. Eq. 126; Wooley v. Moore, 61 N. J. L. 16. Texas. — Douglass v. Blount, (Tex. Civ. App. 1 901) 62 S. W. Rep. 429. Washington. — Lewis v. Third St., etc., R. Co., 26 Wash. 28, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1086 [1084]. West Virgina. — Briggs v. Enslow, 44 W. Va. 499. Wyoming. — Ramsey v. Johnson, 8 Wyo. 476, 80 Am. St. Rep. 948, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Ejtcyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1084. The Assignment of a judgment carries with it the debt, Commercial Bank v. Rufe, 92 Fed. Rep. 789; 40' C. C A, 27 ; the legal title, Mar- tin v. Wilson, 58 C. C. A. 181 ; an appeal bond, Knight V. Griffey, 161 111. 85; Lewis v. Third St., etc., R. Co., 26 Wash. 28 ; all the rights and remedies of the original plaintiff, Ricaud v. Alderman, 132 N. Car. 62; all right to equi- table relief which the assignor possessed, Rog- ers v. Dimon, 106 111. App. 201 ; and the right * to. any remedy or means of indemnity, security, or payment possessed by the assignor as against a sheriff. Citizens Nat. Bank v. Loomis, 100 Iowa 266, 62 Am. St. Rep. 571. Equitable Assignment of Vendor's Lien. — Schmertz v. Hammond, 47 W. Va. 527. Landlord's Lien. — See Hatchett v. Miller, (Tex. Civ, App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 357- The Assignment of a Lease carries with it the right to distrain for rent. Keeley Brewing Co. v.. Mason, 102 111. App. 381. The Eight of Preference given to the claim of a laborer for wages has been held not to pass to his assignee. Bei&ld v. International Ce- ment Co., 79 111. App. 318. 1085. 3. Assignment of Mortgage Without Debt. — Ford v. McDowell, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 694. 1086. 3. Transfer of Debt Without Mortgage — Illinois. — Romberg v. McCormick, 194 111. 205; Mann v. Merchants L. & T. Co., 100 111. App. 224; Elgin City Banking Co. v. Center, 83 111. App. 405. Iowa. — -Franklin Sav. Bank v. Colby, 105 Iowa 424. Kentucky. — Cincinnati Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Leslie, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 413- Louisiana. — Perkins v. Gumbel, 49 La. Ann. 653. Minnesota. — Mankato First Nat. Bank v.. Pope, 85 Minn. 433. Nebraska..— Guthrie v. Treat, 66 Neb. 413; Anderson v. Kreidler, J6 Neb. i?l ; Snell ».. Margritz, 64 Neb. 6. New Jersey. — Daly v. New York, etc., R.. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 59S- New York. — Matter of Falls, (Surrogate: Ct.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 658. North Dakota. — Brynjolfsotl v. Ostlrus, la: N. Dak. 42. Oklahoma. — ■ Geneseo First Nat. Bank v. National Live Stock Bank, 13 Okla. 719. South Dakota. — Grether v. Smith, (S. Dak. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 93. Tennessee. — Union, etc., Bank v. Smith, 107 Tenn. 476 ; Frame v. Tabler, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 1014; Perrin v. Trimble, (Terin. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 125. Texas. — Brandenburg v. Norwood, (Tex. Civ. App. 1 901) 66 S. W. Rep. 587. Wisconsin. — Boyle v. Lybrand, 113 Wis. 79. Transfer of an Interest Coupon carries with it pro tanto a share of the security. New Eng- land L. & T. Co. ». Robinson, 56 Neb. 50, 71 Am. St. Rep. 657; Whitney v. Lowe, 59 Neb. 87 ; Curtiss v. McCune, (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 984. 1087. 1. Mortgage Transferred Without Debt. — Tweto v. Horton, 90 Minn. 451. 3. Effect of Assignment of Mortgage Without Debt. — Hilton v. Woodman, 124 Mich. 326- 4. Effect of Assignment of Debt Alone. — Swift v. Washington Bank, 52 C. C. A. 339, 114 Fed. Rep. 643 ; Cincinnati Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Leslie, (Ky. 1904)' 78 S. W. Rep. 4'3; Tilden v. Stilsoni, 49 Neb. 382 ; Cutting v. Whittemore, 72 N. H. 107. 1088. 2. Chattel Mortgages. — Miller v. Campbell Commission Co., 13 Otla. 75. 5. Assignor Can Do Nothing to Defeat Rights of Assignee. — Howard v. Graybehl, 16 Colo. App. 80 ; Peck-Hammond Co. v. Williams, 77 Miss. 824 ;, Tilden v. Stilson, 49 Neb. 3.82 ; Anderson v. Keidler, 56 Neb. 171 ; Frels f. Little Black Farmers' Mut, Ims. Co., 12c Wis. $90. Vol. II. ASSIGNMENTS. 1090-1097 1090. Declarations and Admissions. — See note 1. (b) Sight to Recover from Assignor on Failure to Realize on Subject Assigned — aa. Generally — Warranty of Validity of Assigned Claim. — See note 5- 1093. bb. On Default of Party Liable — -Question of Warranty. — See note I. 1093. See note 2. 1094. (3) Against the Party Liable — Right to Sue — (a) At Law — Assignee May Sue in Name of Assignor. — - See note 2. 1093. Assignment a Declaration of Trust. — See note I. (b) In Equity — When Assignee of Legal Ghoses May Sue in Equity. — See note 4. 1090. Assignee of Equitable Choses May Sue in His Own Name. — See note I. (c) On Promise of Debtor. — See note 2. 1097. Express and Implied Promise. — See note I. Consideration for Promise. — See note 3. (d) Under Statutes. — See note 6. 1090. 1. Admissions of Assignor. — Oliver v. McDowell, 100 111. App. 45; Reinecke v. Gruner, m Iowa 731; Barnett v. Prudential Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. App. Div. 435 ; Westbury v. Simmons, 57 S. Car. 467. 5. Warranty of Validity of Assigned Claim. •-■ Waller v. Staples, 107 Iowa 738. The Assignor of a Judgment. — Thompson v. First State Bank, 102 Ga. 696; Emerson v. Knapp, 75 Mo. App. 92 ; Findley v. Smith, 42 W. Va. 299, citing 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1090. The Assignor Warrants the Security to be as it is described in the assignment. Lieberman v. Reichard, 7 Northam. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 237. 1092. 1. Assignor Held Liable on Failure to Recover from Obligor. — Long v. Pence's Com- mittee, 93 Va. 584. The Word " Negligence " in the Original Text is obviously a misprint for "diligence." 1093. 2. Due Diligence of Assignee. — Maze v, Owingsville Banking Co., (Ky. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 428; National Oil, etc., Co. v. Teel, 95 Tex. 586; Gooch v. Parker, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 256. 1094. 2. Assignee May Sue in Name of As- signor. — Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 113 111. App. 89 ; Congress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543 ; Bouvier v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.-, 6? N. J. L. 281 ; Todd v. Meding, 56 N. J. Eq. 83 ; Davis, etc., Bldg., etc., Co. v. Caigle, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 240. Assignee Cannot Sue in His Own Name. — Nederland L. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 55 U. S. App. 598, 84 Fed. Rep. 278. 1095. 1. Assignment a Declaration of Trust. — Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. 4. Assignee Having Remedy at Law Cannot Sue in Equity. — Glenn v. Sothoron, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 125, holding, however, that in the case at bar equity was the proper forum. 1096. 1. Assignee May Sue in Equity in His Own Name. — O'Shaugnessy v. Humes, 129 Fed. Rep- 953 ; Gleason, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman, 168 111. 25 ; Kramer v. Wood, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 1116. 2. Assignee May Sue in His Own Name on Promise to Pay. — Nederland L. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 55 U. S. App. 598, 84 Fed. Rep. 278; Bentley ~v. Standard F. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729 ; Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473. 1097. 1. The Statute of Frauds does not apply, and the promise need not be in writing. Wilt v. Huffman, 46 W. Va. 473. 3. Consideration for Promise. — Bentley v. Standard F. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729. 6. Statutory Bight of Assignee to Sue in His Own Name — United States. — American Bond- ing, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866; Cronin v. Patrick County, 89 Fed. Rep. 79 ; Edmunds v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 78 ; Morrison v. North American Transp., etc., Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 802 ; American Bonding, etc., Co. v. Balti- more, etc., R. Co., 60 C. C. A. 52, 124 Fed. Rep. 866. Arkansas. — Lanigan -u. North, 69 Ark. 62. California. — Ingham v. Weed, (Cal. 1897) 48 Pac. Rep. 318; Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee, 123 Cal. 185; Heisen v. Smith, 138 Cal. 216, 94 Am. St. Rep. 39. Colorado. — Forsyth v. Ryan, 17 Colo. App. 51 1. Illinois. — Congress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279. Kansas. — Stewart v. Price, 64 Kan. 191. Kentucky. — Murray v. Duffy, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1038. Massachusetts. — Wiley v. Connelly, 179 Mass. 360 ; Gilman v. American Producers' Controlling Co., 180 Mass. 319. Minnesota. — Hurley v. Bendel, 67 Minn. 41. Mississippi. — Wrights. Hardy, 76 Miss. 524. Missouri. — Campbell v. Harrington, 93 Mo. App. 315; Boyle v. Clark, 63 Mo. App. 473; Guerney v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650. Nebraska. — Crum v. Stanley, 55 Neb. 351; Hixson Map Co. v. Nebraska Post Co., (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 872. New Jersey. — Howe v. Smeeth Copper, etc., Co., (N. J. 1900) 48 Atl. Rep. 24; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. New York. — Penhollow v. Lawyers Title Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 778. North Carolina. — Gill u. Dixon, 131 N. Car. 87. Tennessee. — Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442. Utah. — Lawler v. Jennings, 18 Utah 35. Virginia. — Aylett v. Walker, 92 Va. 540. Washington. — Von Tobel v. Stetson, etc., Mill Co., 32 Wash. 683. West Virginia. — St. Lawrence Boom, etc., Co. v. Price, 49 W. Va. 432 ; Cochrane v. Hyre, 49 W. Va. 315. 9 8x 1098-1099 ASSIGNMENTS. Vol. II. 1098. See note I. Effect of the Statutes. — See note 2. 1099. b. Of the Party Liable — Before Notice. — See note 3. Wisconsin. — Chase v. Dodge, 11 1 Wis. 70; 2. Question of Assignability Sot Affected by Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122. Statute. — McLeland v. St. Louis Transit Co., Bight of Assignor to Sue. — Bentley v. Stand- 10s Mo. App. 473. ard e'. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729, supporting the 1099. 3. Payment. — Bull v. Sink, 8 Kan. second paragraph of the original note. App. 860, 57 Pac. Rep. 853. 103S. 1. Action in Name of Assignor or of As- signee. — Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 543. 382 ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. By L. C. Boehm. 5. I. Origin — 2. Common-law Rules as to Validity. — See note 2. 6. II. Natube — Distinctions — 2. As a Voluntary Transfer — General or Partial. — See note 3. 7. See note 2. 8. 3. Transfer in Trust to Pay Debts. — See note 1. 9. See note 1. 4. Absolute Transfer of Title Required. — See note 2. 11. 5. Direct Transfers to Creditors Distinguished. — See note 1. 13. The New York Eule. — See note I. 13. Bales Distinguished from Assignments. — See note 2. 14. Mortgages Distinguished from Assignments. — See note I. 5. 2. Common-law Rules as to Validity. — Lucy v. Freeman, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 167. See also Eau Claire Grocer Co. v. Hubbard, 97 Wis. 661. 6. 3. Voluntary Transfer. — John P. Kane Co. v. Kinney, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 1, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 6. Conflict of Laws. — State Bank v. McElroy, 106 Iowa 258, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 6. 7. 2. Partial Assignments. — Failure of a debtor to surrender all his property does not render the deed invalid as to the property sur- rendered. Rosenberg v. Smith, (Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 243. 8. - 1. In Trust. — Adler-Goldman Commis- sion Co. v. Phillips, 63 Ark. 40 ; Hillis v. Asay, 105 111. App. 667 ; Morgan Mach. Co. v. Rauch, 84 Mo. App. 514; Young v. Stone, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 370 ; Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478 ; Birmingham Drug Co. v. Free- man, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451. Under the Ohio statute any transfer in trust for creditors constitutes an assignment. Wam- baugh v. Northwestern Mut: L. Ins. Co., 59 Ohio St. 228. An Insolvent's Trust Deed directing payment of the expenses of the trust, wages for labor, certain creditors in full as they appear on the schedule, another list of creditors pro rata, and surplus to the grantor is not a general assignment, but a deed of trust with prefer- ences, and is not subject to the assignment laws. H. B. Claflin Co. v. Lubke, 162 Mo. 648. The Material and Essential Characteristic of a general assignment is the presence of a trust. The assignee is merely trustee, and not abso- lute owner. He buys nothing and pays noth- ing, but takes the title for the performance of trust duties. John P. Kane Co. v. Kinney, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 1. 9. 1. Provision as to Surplus. — Smith-Mc- Cord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 295, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 8,9- Vol. III. 383 Surplus Belongs to Assignor. — Farnsworth v. Doom, 109 Ky. 794. 2. Absolute Transfer of Title Necessary. — Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 295, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 9. Title of Assignee Not Affected by Death of As- signor. — Thaxton v. Smith, 90 Tex. 589, re- versing (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 820. 11. 1. Transfers Directly to Creditors. — Davidson v. Kahn, 116 Ala. 427; Roberts v. Burr, 13s Cal. 156; Droop v. Ridenour, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 224; Deane v. John A. Tolman Co., 83 111. App. 486 ; Oakford v. Fischer, 75 111. App. S44 ; Turner Hardware Co. v. Rey- nolds, 2 Indian Ter. 49 ; Creteau v. Foote, etc., Glass Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 168. The Conveyance of All a Debtor's Property Ex- cept His Homestead to creditors, there being no provision as to any surplus, should not be con- strued as an assignment for creditors. McMor- ran v. Moore, 113 Mich. 101. Where Creditors Were Pressing Claims against an insolvent, payments made to them were held not to operate as an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Diamond Coal Co. v. Carter Dry-Goods Co., (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 438. 12. 1. Eule in New York. — See New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 153. And to the same effect as Brown v. Guthrie, no N. Y. 441, stated in the original note, see Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692. 13. 2. Assignments and Sales Distinguished. — Tuers v. Tuers, 131 Cal. 625; Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 29s ; Ap- pleby v. Lehman, 51 La. Ann. 473; Young v. Stone, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 364, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 13. Arkansas. — Henry v. Croom, 63 Ark. 612. South Carolina. — An instrument in form a bill of sale is not an assignment. Ex p. Neal Loan, etc., Co., 58 S. Car. 269. 14. 1. Mortgages — Assignments. — Burch- inell v. Koon, 25 Colo. 59; Grafe v. Peter 16-19 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. See 16. Mortgage as Statutory Assignment. — See note I. 17. Judgments on Confession and Attachments Distinguished from Assignments. note 2 1 8. III. Assignment Statutes — 1. As Affecting Voluntary Assignments — a. In General. — See note i. b. Prohibiting Preferences. — See note 2. 19. c Requiring Preferences — Wages. — See note 1. Schoenhofen Brewing Co., 78 111. App. 570; Morriss v. Blackman, 179 111. 103; Manton v. Seiberling, 107 Iowa 534 ; Independence First Nat. Bank v. Sweet, (Jowa 1899) 81 N. W. Rep. 238; Taylor v. Riggs, 8 Kan. App. 323; Noyes v. Ross, 23 Mont. 425, 75 Am. St. Rep. 543; Sloan v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 58 Neb. 713; Skinner v. Pawnee City First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 17; Dearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 31 ; Smith-M'Cord Dry Goods Co. v. John B. Farwell Co., 6 Okla. 318. See also Pollock v. Sykes, 74 Miss. 700. In Georgia mortgages and assignments of choses in action given to creditors of an in- solvent partnership were held not to be gov- erned by the assignment acts of 1881 and 1885, since there was nothing indicating a trust in any one's favor. Fulton v. Gibian, 98 Ga. 224. Indian Territory. — " The test is, has the debtor absolutely disposed of his property for the purpose of raising a fund to pay his debts, without reserving the equity of redemption? If so, the transaction constitutes an assign- ment ; otherwise, a mortgage." Smith v. Moore, 2 Indian Ter. 126. To the same effect see Westchester F. Ins. Co. v. Blackford, 2 Indian Ter. 370. Michigan. — Where a corporation gave mort- gages to certain creditors for their benefit and that of certain other creditors, the trans- action was held not to constitute a common- law assignment for the benefit of creditors. Longley v. Amazon Hosiery Co., 128 Mich. 194, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 611. See also Belding- Hall Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 125 Mich. 54, 7 De- troit Leg. N. 433. Minnesota. — " Upon principle and authority we hold that if the members of a copartner- ship, in good faith, solely to secure their debts to one or more but not all of their creditors, transfer to them, by bill of sale or otherwise, the firm property, reserving to themselves the right of redemption, the conveyance is not an assignment for the benefit of creditors, but a mortgage and a valid security, except in in- solvency proceedings, even though the debtors were then insolvent, to the knowledge of the mortgagees, and the transfer covers all of the copartnership assets." Dyson v. St. Paul Nat. Bank, 74 Minn. 439, 73 Am. St. Rep. 358. Ohio. — In a partnership consisting of a son who managed the business and of a father who gave a mortgage on all his realty to secure a partnership note, such mortgage was not an assignment for benefit of creditors. Goodman v. Rawson, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 696. Oregon. — Where a failing debtor executes mortgages to certain creditors, just prior to a general assignment, and there is good faith, such mortgages are not parts of the assign- ment so as to render it invalid under a stat- ute which provides that a general assignment 3«*4 must be for the benefit of all creditors. In- man v. Sprague, 30 Oregon 321. A Mortgage to One Creditor Who Agrees to Fay Others will be construed as an assignment for creditors when the instrument shows that such was the intention. Hill v. Mallory, 112 Mich. 387; Conely v. Collins, 119 Mich. 519; Dahl- man v. Greenwood, 99 Wis. 163. In Sweet v. Neff, 102 Wis. 482, where a number of mortgages were executed to credit- ors at the same time and place and providing that each mortgagee might sell and apply to his own debts, it was held to be a general assignment, and the first mortgagee was a trustee for the subsequent ones. 16. 1. Kentucky Statute. — Where a debtor executed a chattel mortgage to secure a note due in one day the transaction Was held to be an assignment for the benefit of all who were at that time his creditors. Trigg v. Ball, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 701. The assignment dates from the date of the attempted mortgage, and is valid against at- tachments subsequent thereto. Throckmorton v. Monroe, 60 S. W. Rep. 721, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1450. Under the Ohio Statute also a mortgage made in contemplation of insolvency inures to the benefit of all creditors. State Nat. Bank v. Ellison, 75 Fed. Rep. 354. 17. 2. Strasburger v. Dodge, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 37; Lee's Case, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 430; Pauksztis's Estate, 9 Pa. Dist. 80. By the Kentucky Statutes a judgment suffered in contemplation of insolvency has effect as an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Laughlin v. Georgetown First Nat. Bank, 103 Ky. 742. See also Rouss u. Lampton-Crane- Ramey Co., 59 S. W. Rep. 506, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1020. Collusive Judgment. — In Podolski v. Stone, 86 111. App. 62, it was held that a judgment secured by collusion has no preference against the assigned estate. IS. 1. Substantial Compliance with All Statu- tory Provisions for voluntary assignments is necessary. Miller v. Waite, 60 Neb. 431. 2. Iowa. — Where a party who owes money for goods procured by misrepresentations as to credit mortgages such goods and then makes an assignment for creditors, it will be held that the two instruments constituted a general as- signment with a preference, and so the mortgage is void. Creglow v. Creglow, 100 Iowa 276; Elwell v. Kimball, 102 Iowa 720. Deed of Trust. — Where an ordinary deed of trust is given and preferences to certain cred- itors, it will not be construed as a statutory assignment in the absence of a clear intent that it should be so construed, apparent on its face. Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478. 19. 1. Compulsory Preference of Wages, -» Vol.111. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 19-24 19. d. In Efffxt Bankrupt Laws. — See notes 2, 4. 21. 3. Excluding Partial Assignments. — See note t. 22. IV. Who May Assign — 1. General Rule — Mental Capacity — bilities. — See note 1 . 23. 2. Agents. — See note 1. 3. Corporations — a. In General. — See note 3. Charter or Statutory Restrictions. — See note 7. 24. t. Corporate Assignment — How Executed. — See note 2. Disa- The Illinois statute making wages for work done within three months of an assignment for creditors preferred claims refers only to funds properly in the assignee's hands, and not to funds transferred in good faith before the as- signment. Schwartz v. Messinger, 167 111. 474. The Pennsylvania Act of April 22, 1854, pro- viding for the preference of laborers' wages to the extent of one hundred dollars, applies to those not in the actual employment of the con- cern at the time of the assignment. Matter of Thompson Glass Co., 186 Pa. St. 383. One Who Lends Money to Fay Laborers obtains thereby no right to substitution to their claim for preference when their employer assigns for the benefit of creditors. Fair Hope North Sav- age Fire-Brick Co.'s Estate, 183 Pa. St. 96. 19. 2. Similarity to Bankrupt Laws. — See Howland's Appeal, 67 N. H. 575 ; Segnitz v. Garden City Banking, etc., Co., 107 Wis. 171, 81 Am. St. Rep. 830. 4. Not Suspended by Bankrupt Laws. — In Texas it is held that an assignment for the benefit of creditors has an effect very different from an assignment in bankruptcy, and is not suspended by the Bankruptcy Act, but can be set aside if made within the period forbidden by that stat- ute. Patty-Joiner, etc., Co. v. Cummins, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 297. 21. 1. Partial Assessments Prohibited. — Shepard v. Reeves, 39 Fla. 53. See also Kick- busch v. Corwith, 108 Wis. 634. And see the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 437. 2 et seq. 22. 1. Common Law — Any Person of Sound Hind. — Wambaugh v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 59 Ohio St. 228, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 22. The Here Pendency of a Suit in Which a Re- ceivership Is Prayed does not put a debtor's prop- erty in the hands of the court, and so can neither prevent an assignment for the benefit of creditors nor possession by the assignee. Cal- lahan v. Consumers Ice, etc., Co., 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 349, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 479. 23. 1. Assignment by Agent. — Conely v. Collins, 119 Mich. 519. 3. Powers of Corporations to Make Assignments. — Whithed v. J. Walter Thompson Co., 86 111. App. 76, affirmed 185 111. 454; Nathan v. Lee, 152 Ind. 232; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, v. Jones, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 447; Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 401; Gilroy v. Somerville Woolen Mills, (N. J. 1904) 38 Atl. Rep. 651 ; Goetz v. Knie, 103 Wis. 366. See also the title Corporations (Private), 741. 1 et seq. Insurance Companies. — A mutual insurance company organized under the Kentucky Act of March 21, 1895, cannot make an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Beale v. Connecticut F, Ins. Co., 57 C. C. A. 158, 120 Fed. Rep. 790. I Supp. E, of L.— 25 383 An insurance company organized in Missouri cannot make an assignment for the benefit of creditors in that state. McCoy v. Connecticut F. Ins. Co., 87 Mo. App. 73. 7. Statutory Restrictions. — Battery Park Bank v. Western Carolina Bank, 127 N. Car. 432. 24. 3. State Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 83 Miss. 610; Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell Show Printing Co., 144 Mo. 331, 66 Am. St. Rep. 425, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 24. By Board of Directors. — See Blanton v. Ken- tucky Distilleries, etc., Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 318; Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 401 ; State Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 83 Miss. 610; Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell Show Printing Co., 144 Mo. 331, 66 Am. St. Rep. 425 ; Birmingham Drug Co. v. Freeman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451 ; Cupit v. Park City Bank, 20 Utah 293 ; Goetz v. Knie, 103 Wis. 366. By President — Authority — Ratification. — Where an assignment for creditors was ex- ecuted by the president and secretary of a cor- poration without authorization by the board of directors, a subsequent approval by the board of directors ratifies the action taken and ren- ders the assignment valid. Miller v. Matthews, 87 Md. 464. And where the board of directors of a cor- poration resolves upon a general assignment and empowers the president to select an as- signee, the power to execute the assignment is implied, and if the president himself becomes the assignee only the corporation itself can ob- j.ect. Rogers v. Pell, 154 N. Y. 518. But in Schaefer v. Scott, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 438, a general assignment by the president of a corporation was held to be void as against creditors of the corporation because the board of directors had not authorized it. See also Hilliard v. Burlington Shoe Co., 76 Vt. 57. By Vice-president. — An assignment by a vice- president of a corporation, the president being away and the managing director being dead, is valid if authorized by the directors. Wagg- Anderson Woolen Co. v. Lesher, 78 111. App. 678. An unauthorized assignment by a vice-presi- dent is not good as against an execution issued on a judgment entered on the same day. Lesher v. Friedman, 99 111. App. 42, affirmed 198 111. 21. A General Manager of a corporation cannot make an assignment for creditors unless so au- thorized by the board of directors. O'Brien v. Drayage Transfer Co., 81 Mo. App. 664. But it has been held that a managing agent of => corporation has authority to assign for the benefit of creditors in a case where the corpora- tion had no meetings and the agent managed the entire business. Conely v. Collins, 119 Mich. 519. Consent of Stockholders Necessary, — In Wtit 35 33 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. 35. 4. Partnerships — a. In General — Personalty. — See note 3. 36. See note 1. 37. b. Partner's Implied Authority to Assign. — See notes 1, 2. 39. d. Requisites of Firm Assignments. — See note 2. 30. e. Assignment of Partner's Interest. — See note 1. /. Assignment by Surviving Partners. — See note 2. 31. See note 2. 33. V. Who May Be Assignee — 2. Assignor's Right to Select. — See note 4. See also the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 396. 1. et seq. 33. 3. Qualifications of Assignee — b. Residence as Qualification. — See notes 1, 3. 4. Creditors as Assignees. — See note 4. 5. Attorneys as Assignees. — See note 6. Virginia the stockholders' consent to an assign- ment for benefit of creditors is necessary. Kyle v. Wagner, 45 W. Va. 349. And in Powers v. Blue Grass Bldg., etc., Assoc., 86 Fed. Rep. 705, it was held that the directors of a solvent building and loan asso- ciation cannot assign for the benefit of cred- itors unless so authorized by the stockholders, and the stockholders may attack an assignment and have a receiver appointed. 25. 3. Personal Property of Partnership. — Parker v. Brown, (C C A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 595- Ratification. — An assignment of firm property by one partner may be ratified by the other part- ner's acts of assent. Allen v. Meyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 645; Carter- Battle Grocer Co. o. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353- A partner who consented individually in writ- ing to a firm assignment will be held to have consented as a partner. Tait v. Carey, 3 In- dian Ter. 765. 26. 1. Authority and Assent of Partners. — In Pennsylvania it has been held that an, assign- ment by one partner is good unless the other partners positively dissent. Matter of Mill Work, etc., Co., 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 106. 27. 1. Implied Power of Partner. — See gen- erally the title Partnership, 155. 2. And see the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 424. 3 et seq. 2. First — Where It Was Possible to Con- sult the Other Partner or Partners. — One mem- ber of a firm has no authority to assign if the other members can be easily consulted but are not. Mills v. Miller, 109 Iowa 688, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 27. Third — Where a Partner Has, by Absconding, Relinquished All Control over the Partnership Property. — In re Grant, 106 Fed. Rep. 496. A Partner Who Has in Pact Withdrawn from the Firm. — See Meyer-Marx Co. v. Masters, 119 Ala. 186. Where Partner Was Sole Manager. — Keller v. Smith, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 314. A managing partner in charge of the business may assign for the benefit of creditors, and the assent of a partner out of the state will be presumed. H. B. Clafflin Co. u. Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183, 60 Am. St. Rep. 686. 29. 2. Firm Assignments — Individual Assets of Partners — Florida. — Firm assignments, to be valid, must include individual property. Sheppard v. Reeves, 39 Fla. 53. 386 Texas. — • Rogers v. Flournoy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 558. Utah. — A firm may assign for benefit of creditors without including the individual assets, but a creditor can proceed against the individual property when the firm property is insufficient. Wilson v. Sullivan, 17 Utah 341. Wyoming. — Under the assignment law of Wyoming a firm assignment that does not as- sign the individual as well as the firm property is void. Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills, 86 Fed. Rep. 556. Canada. — In British Columbia an assign- ment of the partnership assets only, to pay the partnership debts, is valid under the Creditor's Trust Deeds Act. Eastman v. Pemberton, 7 British Columbia 459. See also the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 438. 3, 4. 30. 1. Assignment by Partner of His Indi- vidual Interest in Firm. — Patty v. City Bank, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475. 2. Power of Surviving Partner. — Burchinell v. Koon, 8 Colo. App. 463 ; State v. Withrow, 141 Mo. 69 ; Rogers ■v. Flournoy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 556, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 30, 31. 31. 2. In Missouri the statutes providing for winding up partnerships after the death of a member, under the probate court, are held to take away the right of the surviving partner to assign for the benefit of creditors. State v. Withrow, 141 Mo. 69. 32. 4. California — Sheriff Must Be Assignee. — Under Civ. Code Cal., § 3449, the assignment is required to be made to the sheriff, who takes only the same title as his assignor. San Jose First Nat. Bank v. Menke, 128 Cal. 103. 33. 1. Residence of Assignee — Statutes. — Lanpher v. Burns, 77 Minn. 407 ; Lucy v. Free- man, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 167; Duryea v. Muse, 117 Wis. 399. 3. Statute Directory. — The Texas statute di- recting that an assignee shall be a resident of the same county as the assignor is directory. Burnette v. Foreman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 36 S. W. Rep. 1032. 4. Creditor as Assignee. — In Vermont, when an assignor appoints a creditor as his assignee, the assignment is not valid unless the creditors assent. Farrar v. Powell, 71 Vt. 247. See fur- ther the title Fraudulent Sales and Convey- ances, 396. 2. 6. Attorney May Be Assignee. — Hilliard v. Burlington Shoe Co., 76 Vt. 57, holding that Vol. III. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 34-40 34. 35. note 3. 36. 37. 39. 40. 8. Officer of Assigning Corporation as Assignee. — See note 3. VL What Passes by the Assignment — 1. In General. Only Property Within Assignment's Terms Will Pass. — See note 2. 2. Real Property and Interests. — See note 2. 3. Personal Estate — a. In General. — See note 1 . See notes 1, 3. See an attorney who as such has a judgment against an assigned estate is not precluded from being assignee. 34. 3. Corporate Officer as Assignee. — Sec- tion 48 of the New York Stock Corporation Law, providing that no transfer shall be made to a director for the payment of any debt after the corporation has refused to pay any debt or note when due, does not include a general as- signment for the benefit of creditors. Linder- man v. Hastings Card, etc., Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 488. 35. 3. What Passes by the Assignment — General Rule. — See McDowell v. Columbia Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 1013; Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. Morgan, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 389; McAllister v. Ohio Valley Banking, etc., Co., 114 Ky. 54° ; Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 401; Howland's Appeal, 67 N. H. 575 ; Loucheim v. Casperson, 61 N. J. Eq. 529; Owens v. Taylor, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 612, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 36 [35] ; H. B. Clafflin Co. v. Evans, 55 Ohio St. 183, 60 Am. St. Rep. 686 ; Cornell v. Suiter, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 384; Cal- isher v. Mathias, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 265 ; Snyder v. Murdock, 20 Utah 407. Rights Fixed as of Date of Assignment. — See Parker v. Brown, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 595 ; Storts v. Mills, 93 Mo. App. 201 ; Matter of Hayes, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 264 ; Kunkle v. Reeser, 5 Ohio Dec. 422, 5 Ohio N. P. 401. A writ of garnishment served after the as- signment gives no right to the plaintiff there- under. Carter-Battle Grocer Co. v. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353. Distributee's Share in Estate Passes to Assignee. — Gatewood v. Gatewood, 70 S. W. Rep. 284, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 931. Dower Rights. — Where a husband assigned for creditors, and the wife released her dower for one thousand five hundred dollars but died prior to payment, it was held that the husband could not claim the one thousand five hundred dollars, 'for it belonged to the assigned estate. Allen v. Patrick, 97 Va. 521. 36. 2. Only Property Embraced in Instru- ment Passes. — Owens v. Taylor, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 612, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 36. Property Excluded from Operation of Assign- ment Does Not Pass. — Armstrong v. Merchant's Mantle Mfg. Co., 32 Ont. 387. 37. 3. Rents. — ■ Under a trust assignment for the benefit of creditors, possession of the property and the right to collect the rents pass to the grantee. Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478. Rents due to the assignor must be applied by the assignee to the payment of liens valid against the estate. Matter of Neff, 185 Pa. St. 98. An Equity of Redemption Passes. — Sowles v. Lewis, 75 Vt. 59. Partnership Realty. — In Ryan v. Ruff, 90 Minn. 169, it was held that where a member of a firm assigned all of his property the assign- ment conveyed his realty belonging to the co- partnership when title was held in the individ- ual names. Remainders have been held to pass. Rob- bins's Estate, 199 Pa. St. 500; Musser's Estate, 12 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 145; Wilson v. Lang- horne, 102 Va. 631 (under statute). And it is immaterial that the parties were ignorant of such effect. McAllister u. Ohio Valley Bank- ing, etc., Co., 114 Ky. 540. A Defeasible Fee passes, and the assignee can convey what title and estate the assignor was seized of. Trimble v. Shawhan, 101 Ky. 403- 39. 1. Trade Marks and Names. — Unless a trade name is peculiarly personal to the as- signor, it will pass under an assignment for benefit of creditors. Sarrazin v. W. R< Irby Cigar, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 93 Fed. Rep. 624. Compare Bellows v. Bellows, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 482. See also the title Trademarks, Trade Names, and Unfair Com- petition, 399. 8 et seq., 404. 5, 405. 1. Actual Delivery of Personalty Not Essential. — Carter-Battle Grocer Co. v. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353. Moneys belonging to the assignor pass though not mentioned in the assignment. Tishomingo Sav. Inst. v. Allen, 76 Miss. 114. 40. 1. Shares Not Fully Paid Up do not pass, when expressly excepted from the opera- tion of the assignment. Armstrong v. Mer- chant's Mantle Mfg. Co., 32 Ont. 387. 3. Congress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279 ; Smith v. Longmire, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 257. Insurance Policy. - — The phrase " all things in action " passes a life-insurance policy, and the assignor cannot thereafter sue on it. Cohn v. Guardian Assur. Co., 68 Mo. App. 376. So the cash surrender value of a life-insur- ance policy passes to the assignee. Burnsides v. National Bank, 64 S. W. Rep. 520, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 880. But where an assignee entirely ignored a life- insurance policy on the assignor's life, paid no premiums, and for eight years made no claims against it, he was held to have no valid claim against it on maturity. Provident Life, etc., Co. v. Fidelity Ins. Trust, etc., Co., 203 Pa. St. 82. And in Barbour v. Larue, 106 Ky. 546, it was held that an ordinary life-insurance policy, not being convertible into any money, did not pass to the assignee, 387 40-45 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. 40. Uncalled-for and Unpaid Subscriptions to Corporate Stock. — See note 4. b. Debts Due to the Assignor. — See note 5. 41. c. As to Partnership Property. — See notes 1, 2. 42. 4. Exempt Property. — See note 3. 43. See note 1. 44. 5. Subsequently-acquired Property. — See note 1. 6. Trust Funds. — See note 2. 45. 7. Effect of Uncertainty in Description of Persons or Property - - Assign- ment to Be Explicit. — See note 3. 40. 4. Corsicana Nat. Bank v. Baum, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 812; Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546. 6. Contingent Debts. — See New Jersey Steel, etc., Co. v. Robinson, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 481. 41. 1. Where One Partner Assigned for the Firm and Individually and signed his partner's name, the partner's individual property was held not to pass. Jackman v. Fortson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 215. Individual Doing Business under a Firm Name. — Where an individual doing business under a firm name assigned for creditors, a judgment in the firm name may be shown to be indi- vidual property. State v. Honousek, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 516, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 303. When Both Firm and Individual Property Will Pass. — When, an assignment recites that it is made for the payment of firm creditors, but assigns the individual as well as the firm prop- erty, both the firm and the individual prop- erty will pass. John Hibben Dry-Goods Co. v. Haley, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 252. 2. Individual Assignment Does Not Pass Firm Property. — ■ Raymond v. Schoonover, 181 Pa. St. 352- Individual Assignment for Partnership Debts. — A member of a banking institution may as- sign his individual property for the payment of the bank's debts, but unless he is unable to pay his individual debts, such ■ assignment is limited to the debts of the bank. Heitzenreither v. Long, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 524. 42. 3. Effect upon Property Exempt by Law. — Dorr v. Schmidt, 38 Fla. 354 ; Calloway v. Calloway, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 241 ; Mc- Allister v. Ohio Valley Banking, etc., Co., 114 Ky- 540; Cunningham v. Brictson, 101 Wis. 378. See also the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 441. 4 et seq. Crops Planted After the Assignment are not the subject of exemption. Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. Morgan, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 389- Attachment Not Election. — An attachment of exempt property is not an election not to take under the assignment. Patty v. City Bank, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475. Waiver of Exemption. — The exemption is not an absolute right, but a privilege, and therefore may be waived as well as lost hy laches. The form of the assignment may be such as to ope- rate as a waiver. In re Ley, 7 British Colum- bia 94. 43. 1. Exemption of Homestead. — Armour v. Doig, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 249; Simpson v. Greenwell, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 433; McNamara v. Schwaniger, 106 Ky. 1 ; Mat- thews v. Matthews, 79 S. W. Rep. 188, 25 Ky. L, Rep. 1873; Jordan y, Newsome, 126 N. Car. 553; Robinson v. McDowell, 133 N. Car. 182, 98 Am. St. Rep. 704; Kunkle v. Reeser, 5 Ohio Dec. 422, 5 Ohio N. P. 401; Starkey v. Wainright, 9 Ohio Dec. 436, 6 Ohio N. P. 32; Finley v. Cartwright, 55 S. Car. 198; Allen v. Meyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 645. Reference to Statute. — When a deed for the benefit of creditors reserves " =1 homestead ex- emption such as a bona fide housekeeper with a family would take under the statute laws of Kentucky," and the statute makes no such pro- vision, the assignor is not entitled to any ex- emption. Russell v. Russell, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 1041. Mortgage Inuring to Creditors. — Where a court has decreed that a mortgage inures for the benefit of all creditors the mortgagor can- not claim an exemption of his homestead. Pease v. Schuh, 4 Ohio Dec. 121, 5 Ohio N. P. 245. 44. 1. Property Acquired Subsequently to Assignment. — Drovers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Rol- ler, 85 Md. 495, 60 Am. St. Rep. 344. 2. Trust Funds Do Not Pass. — Dickinson v. Champlain First Nat. Bank, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 254; Appalachian Bank v. Gatch, 2 Ohio Dec. 366, 7 Ohio N. P. 307. Misappropriation of Trust Funds. — Whenever an assignor has converted trust funds and such funds have gone to swell the estate, a court of equity may declare that the cestui que trust has a preference over all other creditors. Schwartz Bros. Commission Co. v. Zumbaulen, 85 Mo. App. 671. But where the insolvent spent trust funds in such a way that they did not go to swell the general estate, no lien exists against the funds in the hands of the assignee. Drovers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Roller, 85 Md. 495, 60 Am. St. Rep. 344. See also Burrows v. Johntz, 57 Kan. 778. Assignment by Assignee. — Where an assignee for the benefit of creditors in turn assigns for the benefit of his own creditors he does not thereby divest himself of the trust estate. Rutherford v. Loving, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 418. An Assignment of Property Held in Trust does not defeat the rights of the cestui que trust. Bank Com'rs v. Security Trust Co., 70 N. H. 543- To Sender an Assignee Liable to Account to a party who had placed money in the hands of his assignor, as for a trust fund, it must ap- pear either that the fund actually came into the hands of the assignee or that it went to swell the estate of the assignor. Travellers Ins. Co. v. Caldwell, 59 Kan. 156; Wallace v. Caldwell, 9 Kan. App. 538. 45. 3. Illustration* of Descriptions in Assign.. Vol. III. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 46-53 46. 8. Assignee Takes Subject to Equities. — See note I. 47. Liens. — See note 2. 48. VII. Conflict of Assignment Laws — 1. General Rule of Comity. — See note 3. 49.. 2. Foreign Law Violated — Residents Protected. — See note 2. 51. 3. As Between Parties from Same State. — See note 1. 4. As to Law of Only Domestic Application. — See note 4. 52. 5. As to Foreign Debts Due Assignor. — See note 1. 53. 8. Assignments of Realty Governed by Law of Situs. — See note 1 . ments. — An assignment conveying the entire stock of goods, wares, merchandise, vehicles, and personal property described, all " lying, situate, and being " in the back yard of a store, was held to convey five hay presses on a vacant lot fifty feet back of such yard, where nothing was in the yard and the evident intention was to convey them. Anderson Mfg. Co. v. Man- sur, etc., Implement Co., (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 241. As to the Necessity and Sufficiency of the de- scription generally see the title Fraudulent Sales and Conveyances, 398. 2 et seq. 46. 1. Subject to Equities. — Colbert v. Baet- jer, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 416; Lesher v. Fried- man, 99 111. App. 42, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 46; Wheeler v. Home Sav., etc., Bank, 85 111. App. 28 ; Byrne v. Ft. Smith Nat. Bank, 1 Indian Ter. 680 ; Billings v. Collins, 44 Me. 271 ; Parlin Orendorf Co. v. Hord, 78 Mo. App. 279, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 252; Storts v. Mills, 93 Mo. App. 201 ; Horner- Gaylord Co. v. Fawcett, 50 W. Va. 487, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 46. See also Hetzel v. Sawyer, 10 Pa. Dist. 29. Personalty on Which a Chattel Mortgage Has Been Given has been held to pass to the as- signee where the mortgage was not recorded as required by statute. Morris v. Ellis, 16 Ind. App. 679. See also the title Recording Acts, 130. 2 et seq. 47. 2. Lesher v. Friedman, 99 111. App. 42, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 47 ; Horner-Gaylord Co. v; Fawcett, 50 W. Va. 491, quoting 2 Encyc. of Pl. and Pr. 879 [3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 47]. 48. 3. General Rule of Comity Applicable to Assignments — United States. — Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, 173 U. S. 624; Parker v. Brown, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 595; Memphis Sav. Bank v. Houchens, 52 C. C. A. 176, 115 Fed. Rep. g6. Arkansas. — Smead v. Chandler, 71 Ark. 505. California. — Fenton v. Edwards, 1 26 Cal. 43, 77 Am. St. Rep. 141. Illinois. — J. Walter Thompson Co. v. White- hed, 185 111. 454, 76 Am. St. Rep. 51, affirming 86 111. App. 76. Indiana. — Union Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. In- dianapolis Lounge Co., 20 Ind. App. 325 ; Pit- man v. Marquardt, 20 Ind. App. 431 ; Nathan v. Lee, 152 Ind. 232. Iowa. — State Bank v. McElroy, 106 Iowa 261. Kentucky. — Peach Orchard Coal Co. v. Wood- ward, 105 Ky. 790. Mississippi. — Byers v. Tabb, 76 Miss. 843. New Hampshire. — Weston v. Nevers, 72 N. H. 65. New Jersey. — In re Browning, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 869. New York. — Dearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 31 ; Matter of Halsted, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 101 ; Walter v. F. E. McAlister Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 747; Workum v. Caldwell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 72; Bloomingdale v. Maas, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 672. Ohio. — Wright v. Franklin Bank, 59 Ohio St. 180. Pennsylvania. — ■ Zucher v. Froment, 5 Pa. Dist. 579. South Carolina. — Ayres u. Desportes, 56 S. Car. 544. Texas. — Carter-Battle Grocer Co. v. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353. Washington. — Bloomingdale v. Weil, 29 Wash. 611. West Virginia. — Yost v. Graham, 50 W. Va. 199. Canada. — Brand v. Green, 13 Manitoba 101. 49. 2. Domestic Creditors Protected. — Bel- fast Sav. Bank v. Stowe, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 100 ; Zacher v. Fidelity Trust, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 106 Fed. Rep. 593 ; Smead v. Chand- ler, 71 Ark. 505; Smith v. Lamson, 184 111. 71 ; Bank of Commerce v. Windmuller, 106 Ky. 395 ; Dyson v. St. Paul Nat. Bank, 74 Minn. 439, 73 Am. St. Rep. 358 ; De Yurck v. Woelfel, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 265 ; Happy v. Prickett, 24 Wash. 290; Bloomingdale v. Weil, 29 Wash. 611. Where Two Assignments Were Made Simultane- ously, one in Connecticut and the other in Ken- tucky, the Connecticut creditors were not al- lowed to have dividends in the Kentucky prop- erty until the Kentucky creditors had secured as great a dividend in Kentucky as the Con- necticut creditors had in Connecticut. Weller v. Hull, 74 S. W. Rep. 172, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2185. 51. 1. Effect as Between Parties in Same State. — An assignor cannot set up the lex rei sitm to defeat the rights of creditors to lands situ- ated without the state. Kendall v. McClure Coke Co., 182 Pa. St. 1, 61 Am. St. Rep. 688. 4. See Barth 0. Iroquois Furnace Co., 63 111. App. 323- 52. 1. Effect upon Debts Due Assignor in For- eign State, — Barth v. Iroquois Furnace Co., 63 111. App. 323. See also supra, this title, 40. 5. 53. 1. Assignment of Realty — By What Law Governed, — Where two mortgages are given, on property in two states, the law of each state is applied to the land therein, and the fact that the mortgage in one state operates as an as- signment for creditors does not affect the other. Dunham v. McNatt, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 552. Assignments of Land Governed by Lex Rei Sitae. — -Nathan v. Lee, 152 Ind. 232; Manton v. Seiberling, 107 Iowa 534; Watson v. Holden, 389 05-60 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. 55. 10. State and Federal Decisions — Comity. — See note i. VIII. Formal Requisites of Assignments — 1. To Be in Writing. — See note 3. 56. 2. Form Not Essential but Important. — bee note 2. 3. Constructive Assignments. — See note '2. 4. The Approved Form. — See note 3. 5. Informal Writings — Intention. — See note 4. 6. Consisting of Several Instruments. — See note 1. 7. As to Directory Provisions — Assignment Bad in Part. — See note 3. 8. As to Mandatory Provisions — Schedules or Inventory. — Seenotes 1,2. See also the title FRAUDULENT SALES AND CONVEYANCES, 398. 2 et seq. 60. See notes 1, 2. 57. 58. 59. 58 Kan. 657 ; Davenport v. Gannon, 123 N. Car. 362, 68 Am. St. Rep. 827. 55. 1. Construction of Statute by State Court Controls. — Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Mills, 86 Fed. Rep. 556 ; Ontario Bank v. Hurst, (C. C. A.) 103 Fed. Rep. 231 ; Zacher v. Fidel- ity Trust, etc., Co., 45 C. C. A. 480, 106 Fed. Rep. 593. _ _ 3. General Rule — Should Be in Writing. — Lacy v. Gunn, 144 Cal. 511 ; Blackmanz*. Metro- politan Dairy Co., 77 HI- App. 609; Lucy 1. Freeman, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 167. This Is Usually Required by Statute. — Sager v. Summers, 49 Neb. 459. In Kentucky a parol assignment is valid. Muir v. Samuels, no Ky. 605. 56. 2. No Particular Form Necessary.— Wambaugh v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 59 Ohio St. 241. 57. 2. Constructive Assignments Not Allowed Where Intention Was Honest. — People's Deposit Bank v. Campbell, 59 S. W. Rep. 22, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 983. But in Kentucky, where a partner who is in- solvent transfers his individual estate to the firm, also insolvent, the transaction will be construed as an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Louisville Trust Co. v. Columbia Finance, etc., Co., (Ky. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 867. 3. Certain Approved Forms. — In Bradley Fer- tilizer Co. v. Pace, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. S62, a conveyance to the assignee and his suc- cessors, and not to the assignee and his heirs, was held to be the proper form. i. Informal Writings Upheld Where Intention Clear. — See Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Pace, (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 862; Graham Paper Co. v. Sanderson, 8 Colo. App. 427. 58. 1. May Consist of Several Instruments. — Ontario Bank v. Hurst, (C. C. A.) 103 Fed. Rep. 231 ; Hargardine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Bradley, 1 Indian Ter. 650 ; Union, etc., Bank v. Allen, 77 Miss. 442 ; Maas v. Miller, 58 Ohio St. 4S3. Where the Defendant Executed Chattel Mort- gages. — Where a chattel mortgage was given to a creditor just prior to an assignment for creditors, but the mortgagee never accepted the mortgage nor claimed rights thereunder, it was held that the assignment was good and the mortgage failed. Marlin v. Teichgraeber, 63 Kan. 521. Notes Given as Preferences with a view to an assignment and followed by an assignment have been construed as a part thereof so as to in- validate it. Standard Shoe Co. v. Thompson, 32 Oregon 30. 3. Strict Compliance Not Always Essential. — Failure to state how or when the property must be sold does not invalidate the assignment, but simply clothes the assignees with discretion- ary powers. Silsby v. Strong, 38 Oregon 36. 59. 1. Assignor's Oath Mandatory. — When schedules were not verified for sixty days, and within three days after their filing the holder of a chattel mortgage, unrecorded, brought re- plevin against the assignor and assignee, the assignment was held to be inoperative. Keith v. Hamblin; 7 Kan. App. 456. 2. Instances of Imperative Provisions — United States. — Badgett v. Johnson- Fife Hat Co., (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 408; Brown v. Parker, (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 446. Indian Territory. — • Where an assignment for creditors was made, but no bond or inventory was filed, the assignment was held to be fraud- ulent and void. Hargardine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Bradley, 1 Indian Ter. 650. See also Martin Browne Co. v. Morris, 1 Indian Ter. 495 ; Westchester F. Ins. Co. v. Blackford, 2 Indian Ter. 370. Kansas. — An assignment does not take effect until the schedules are filed, but a delay of two days will not avoid the assignment when it is made in good faith. Goodin v. Newcomb, 6 Kan. App. 431. North Carolina. — Cooper -u. McKinnon, 122 N. Car. 447; Brown v. Nimocks, 124 N. Car. 417; Martin v. Buffaloe, 128 N. Car. 305, 83 Am. St. Rep. 679. Oklahoma. — Hockaday v. Drye, 7 Okla. 288. Tennessee. — Forshee v. Willis, 101 Tenn. 450. Canada. — Birks v. Lewis, 8 Quebec Q. B. 517, affirmed 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 618. 60. 1. Silsby v. Strong, 38 Oregon 36. Failure to Attach the Schedules to a deed does not invalidate the instrument when the assign- ment describes the property sufficiently for identification. Maul v. Drexel, 55 Neb. 446. The Inventory Is Not Conclusive, in Illinois and Iowa, as to what property passes under the assignment. Congress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279 ; Turrill v. McCarthy, 114 Iowa 681, holding further that the omission of property title to which was in dispute will not invalidate the assignment. 2. Assignments Given Effect Before Schedules Annexed. — Pitman v. Marquardt, 20 Ind. App. 431; Blair v. Anderson, 61 Kan. 376; Hocka- day v. Drye, 7 Okla. 288 ; Snyder v. Murdock, 20 Utah 407. 390 Vol. III. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 60-66 60. Omissions from Schedules. — See note 5- 63. 9. Assignee as Party — Acceptance — Acceptance of an Assignment. — See note 2. 10. Assent of Creditors. — See note 3. See also the title FRAUDU- LENT Sales and Conveyances, 390. 3. et seq. 63. When the Assignment Is Manifestly for the Advantage of the Creditors. — See note I. 64. When Express Assent Necessary. — See note 4. 11. Acknowledgment. — See note 6. 66. 12. Recording — Necessity of Recording. — See notes 2, 3. Failure to File Schedules. — In Arizona an assignment for the benefit of creditors is not in- validated by a failure to file an inventory. Babbitt v. Mandell, (Ariz. 1898) 53 Pac. Rep. 577. And in New Hampshire failure to file schedules within the statutory period of ten days does not invalidate the assignment. How- land's Appeal, 67 N. H. 575. Supplementary Document — List of Creditors. — A supplementary list was allowed in Gordons- ville Milling Co. v. Jones, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 630, when it referred definitely to the former assignment and stated that it was a list of creditors and liabilities. 60. 5. Effect of Accidental and Trifling Omis- sions. — Phillips, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Whitney, (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 838 ; Troescher v. Cos- grove, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 498. 62. 2. Acceptance Essential. — After a deed is signed and recorded a lien that attaches be- fore acceptance by the assignee is valid, as title does not pass until such acceptance. Mac- Veagh v. Chase, 67 111. App. 160. Where an Assignee Is Also an Attaching Creditor his acceptance operates to dissolve the attach- ment. Ryhiner v. Ruegger, 19 111. App. 156. 3. Express Assent of Creditors Not Required. — Lacy v. Gunn, 144 Cal. 511; Billings ■. Etheridge Mfg. Co., (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 169; Stone v. Hart, 66 S. W. Rep. 191, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1777 ; Mattingly v. Mattingly, 72 S. W. Rep. 802, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2029 ; Weller v. Hull, 74 S. W. Rep. 172, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2185; Na- tional Bank v. Dulaney, 96 Md. 159; Davis v. Swedish-American Nat. Bank, 78 Minn. 408, 79 Am. St. Rep. 400 ; Hay v. Bacon, 80 Minn. 188 ; Tishomingo Sav. Inst. o. Allen, 76 Miss. 114; Matter of Talmage, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 466 ; Matter of Ginsburg, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 27 Misc. (N, Y.) 745; Matter of Reynolds, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 397; Matter of Bowlby, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 311 ; Matter of Dwight, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 357 ; Parkhurst, etc., Co. v. Etna Coal Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 58 ; Morris v. Ellis, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 250; Berkeley v. Green, 102 Va. 378. Where an attorney for the assignor and for some creditors was also counsel to the assignee, it was held that his fees should not be paid out of the assigned estate. Wright's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 90. On an assignee's defalcation the attorney is entitled to have his fees paid directly out of the estate. Courier Journal Job-Printing Co. v. Co- lumbia F. Ins. Co., (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 966. An Assignee Cannot Retain His Own Firm, but is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for defending an action. Matter of Clute, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 234. Clerical Work. — It has been held that an as- signee should do all the clerical work himself, and so has no right to employ an attorney for such purposes and charge the expense thereof to the estate. Matter of Bicknell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 302. See also Mat- ter of Friend, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 300. 119. 2. Compensation — When Allowed. — See generally National Bank v. Dulaney, 96 Md. 159; Mann v. Poole, 48 S. Car. 154; Mat- ter of Day, 18 Wash. 359 ; Second Ward Sav. Bank v. Schranck, 100 Wis. 480. Compensation to Be Determined by Court. — Branch v. American Nat. Bank, 57 Kan. 282 ; Hay v. Bacon, 80 Minn. 188; In re H. Penner Co., 93 Wis. 655. Amount of Compensation. — Where an estate sold for sixty thousand dollars and the as- signee had worked two ■ years and advanced one thousand, he was held to be entitled to two thousand four hundred dollars. Dunlap v. Fible, etc., Distilling Co., 77 S. W. Rep. 173, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 11 16. By rule of the St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri the assignee's commissions and coun- sel fees may not exceed fifteen per cent, of the estate received and disbursed by him. Elaine Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 82 Mo. App. 317. Prohibition as to Compensation of Nonresident Assignee. — Tennant v. Macewan, 24 Ont. App. 132. Though an Assignee Has Allowed Funds to Lie Idle for six years and has not been charged interest, commissions may nevertheless be al- lowed to him. Matter of Bostwick, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 17. When an Assignee Is Being Bemoved for Negligence and an accounting is demanded the court must have evidence whether or not his conduct will preclude him from commissions, before granting them. Matter of Reynolds, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 397. Where the Assignee Is Indebted to the Assignor such indebtedness must be deducted from the commissions, in paying the assignee. In re Ex- celsior Mfg. Co., 164 Mo. 316. An Assignee Who Acts Also as Attorney may be allowed his commission independently of his fees, but where an estate is subject to liens the commissions should be computed only on the amount over and above the liens. Morris v. Ellis, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 250. The Assignee Cannot Charge the Creditors Personally with the amount of his compensa- tion, in the absence of an express or implied promise on their part to pay, but must look to the assets of the estate. Johnston v. Dulmage, 30 Ont. 233. When Compensation Denied. — An assignee is not entitled to compensation for services to the creditors nor when it appears that full com- pensation has been allowed. Reed v. Terhune, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 829, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 544. Where an assignee sells mortgaged land to the mortgagee he is not entitled to commis- sions on the sale. Harrison v. Chatfield, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 553, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 294. Where the assigned estate was bid in by a mortgagee for less than the mortgage debt, the assignee was held not to be entitled to com- pensation from him. Andrews v. Johns, 59 Ohio St. 65. An assignee who refuses to account as to the sums collected by him and as to the expenses is not entitled to commissions. Caumiser v. Humpich, 64 S. W. Rep. 851, 23 Ky. L. Rep. "33- 3. Bule Similar to that Concerning Executors. — Re Woodall, 33 Oregon 382; Woodcock v. Reilly* 16 S. Dak. 198; Beecher v. Foster, 51 W. Va. 605. Same as Clerks and Masters. — In Tennessee, in the absence of provisions in the trust deed, the compensation of the trustee will ordinarily be the same as that of clerks and masters, but the court may exercise its discretion in the matter. German Bank v. Haller, 103 Tenn. 73. 120. 1. Grading Compensation. — See Cole- man's Estate, 200 Pa. St. 29, holding that in fixing the amount of compensation the court \ should consider the ability, judgment, responsi- bility, and expenses of the assignee and the size of the estate.. Compensation of Nominal Assignee. — See Tennant z>, Macewan, 24 Ont. App. 132, 403 130-125 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. 130. Commissions. — See note 2. Where the Assignment Is Fraudulent. — See note 3. 121. 15. Discharge of Assignee and Sureties. — See note 1. XIV. Liabilities of Assignee and Sureties — 1. Assignee's lia- bility for Neglect and Mismanagement. — See note 4. 122. For Sealizing Less than Appraisement. — See note 6. 124. 3. Assignee's Liability for Interest — For Delay and Misappropriation. — See note 2. 125. 4. Assignee's Liability for Rent. — See note 2. 120. S. Where Assignor Effected a Composi- tion. — Where, upon a composition, the assignee refused to reassign unless he be allowed to re- tain his statutory fee and be released, it was held that a release given could not be avoided for duress, since the New York statute does not prevent an agreement by the assignor to pay more than the statutory fee, provided only that the creditor's interests have been disposed of. McCann -u. O'Brien, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 193- Where the Assignee Sold a Creditor's Collateral he was held to be entitled to commissions only on the surplus that went to swell the funds of the estate. Matter of Talmage, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 466. 3. Where the Assignor Became Bankrupt within four months after the assignment it was held that as the assignment was a violation of the bankruptcy law and the assignee was the agent of the assignor he could recover no al- lowance over the actual and necessary expense in the management of the estate. In re Mays, 114 Fed. Rep. 600. 121. 1. As to the Right of the Assignee under the various statutes to final settlement of his account and discharge from his trust, see Knoedler v. Teegarden, 72 S. W. Rep. 268, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1785; Abner L. Backus, etc., Co. v. Backus, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 789, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 341 ; Re Murray, 31 Oregon 173. 4. Negligence and Mismanagement. — Cooper ■v. Lankford, 78 S. W. Rep. 197, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1578; In re Excelsior Mfg. Co., 164 Mo. 316; Matter of Leventritt, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 429 ; In re Thompson Dry Goods Co., 1 1 Ohio Dec. 303, 8 Ohio N. P. 373 ; Milburn Mfg. Co. v. Wayland, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 43 S. W. Rep. 129 ; Ruhl v. Berry, 47 W. Va. 824, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of. Law (2d ed.) 121 ; Hill v. American Surety Co., 107 Wis. 19. Assignee Liable for Conversion. — Jones v. Mc- Cormick Harvesting Mach. Co., (C. C. A.) 82 Fed. Rep. 295. Assignor and Assignee in Collusion. — Where the assignee knows of a collusive judgment con- fessed by the assignor and enters into the fraud he will be surcharged with the loss thereby sus- tained by the estate. In re Bailey, 188 Pa. St. 590. Assignee's Liability to Assignor for Exempt Property. — Where an assignor is entitled to exemptions a refusal by the assignee to pay over the amount will render him personally liable for the money. Overley v. Given, (Ky. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 1059. When Assignee Not Liable. — An assignee is not liable for loss resulting from the authorized act of a duly appointed receiver. D. Keefer Milling Co. v. Covington First Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 265. Nor is he liable for loss caused by an error of judgment where he acted in good faith and with fair discretion. . J. I. Case Plow Works u. Edwards, 71 111. App. 655. So an assignee is not liable on a contract of his assignor when he had no notice of such a contract. Wallace v. Wold, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 475. 122. 6. Lacy u. Gunn, 144 Cal. sir; J. I. Case Plow Works v. Edwards, 176 111. 34. Inventory by Assignor. — An assignee will not be surcharged with the difference between the inventory value and the sum realized when the assignor filed the inventory. Matter of Gins- burg, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 745- Liability Not for Appraised Value. — An as- signee should not be charged with the ap- praised value of goods, but the auditor must ascertain the actual value, and that is the right basis for a restatement of the account. Powell's Estate, 7 Pa. Dist. 27. 124. 2. General Rule as to Intent. — An as- signee should try to invest the trust funds, and failing to do so he will be charged interest. Lane's Appeal, 24 Pa. St. 487. Delay in Faying Dividends.— An assignee who without any apparent reason delays in the dis- tribution of dividends is chargeable with inter- est thereon. Morris v. Ellis, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 250. 125. 2. Assignee Not Bound to Accept Lease- hold. — Judd v. Bennett, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 558 ; Wilder v. McDonald, 63 Ohio St. 383, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 125. Illinois Rule. — In Illinois the assignee may elect whether he shall retain the rights under a lease to his assignor, and if he retain the lease his liability therefor is personal. Rey- nolds v. Fuller, 64 111. App. 134. The assignee has a reasonable time in which to decide whether he will retain a lease owned by his assignor, but is chargeable with rent pro rata for the time he occupies the premises. Rand v. Francis, 168 111. 444. The Mississippi Statute making a lessor who distrains on an assignee of the lessee for rent liable for contempt does not prevent, him from claiming funds accruing from a sale of such goods, in the hands of the assignee. Rice v. Harris. 76 Miss. 422. Liability on Covenants. — An assignee who takes a lease as an asset of an estate is not liable on the covenants thereon maturing before his acceptance. Walton v. Stafford, 14 N. Y. Apn. Div. 310. Liability Not Avoided by Abandonment. — Having elected to accept a lease the assignee cannot get rid of his liability by mere abandon - 404 Vol. III. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 185-133 135. 136. 137. 139. Assignee's Election Not to Hold Lease. — See note 3. Election to Hold Lease. — See note I . Assignee's Personal Liability. — See note 2. 5. Assignee's Liability for Business Bisks. — See note 3. How Assignee May Be Protected — Consent of Creditors. — See note 2. 8. Liability of Sureties. — See note 1. XV. Bights of Creditors — 1. Bight to Attachment. — See note 5. See also the title Attachment, 301. 2 et seq. 131. Foreign Attaching Creditors Without Notice. — See note I. 2. Bight of Judgment Creditors to Execution — where Property Not Deliv- ered to Assignee. — See note 2. 133. 3. Bight to Vacate Assignment — b. What Creditors May At- tack ASSIGNMENT — Only Creditors Injured by It. — See note 4. See generally the title Creditors' Bills and Fraudulent Conveyances, 5 Encyc. of Pl. AND PR. 388, and the Supplement thereto. ment. Thorns v. Meader, 9 Ohio Dec. 490, 6 Ohio N. P. 242. 125. 3. When Assignee Elects Not to Hold Lease. —Walton v. Stafford, 162 N. Y. 558. 126. 1. Illustrations. — Offering a lease for sale is evidence of an election to accept it. Rawn v. Hotel Madison Co., 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 737. An assignee is liable for rent of property that his assignor had leased, if he occupies it, but only for the time that he does occupy it. Came- ron v. Nash, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 532. 2. Assignee's Personal Liability. — Wilder v. McDonald, 63 Ohio St. 383, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 126. Assignee Liable on Lease in Representative Capacity. — When a lease is embraced in the properties of an assignee for benefit of cred- itors the assignee's liability thereon is in his representative capacity. Man v. Katz, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 645. See also Tierney v. Peerless Shoe Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 803. 3. Assignee Continuing the Business. — Where an assignee allowed the assignor to conduct a business in his name, and he did so for sev- ' eral years at a profit, and the heirs of the assignor, on his decease, allowed the plan to continue and took the benefits accruing, the as- signee was held not to be liable for losses suf- fered in an off year, except as to a minor's share. Quimby v. Uhl, 130 Mich. 198, 9 De- troit Leg. N. 1. Assignee Liable on Contracts Made as Assignee. — Smith v. Williams, 178 111. 420. Profits of Business. — Where an assignee con- ducts the assignor's business the profits belong to the estate, and the assignee must account for them. In re Mansfield, 113 Iowa 104; Ben- nett's Estate, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 609. 127. 2. Continuing Business with Consent of Creditors or Order of Court. — Smith v. Williams, 178 111. 420. Payment into Court on interpleader will pro- tect the assignee. Gregg's Assignment, 74 Mo. App. 58. 129. 1. Wilson v. Louisville Nat. Banking Co., 76 S. W. Rep. 1095, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1065 ; . Huddleson v. Polk, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 624; Maverick v. Skinner, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 640. 5. Where Assignment in Fraud of Creditors. — Watson v. Bonfels, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 157; H. B. Claflin Co. v. Harrison, 44 Fla. 218; Louisville Banking Co. v. Etheridge Mfg. Co., (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 169; Stevens z: Bell, 6 Mass. 339 ; Weston v. Nevers, 72 N. H. 65. Compare Anderson v. Doak, 10 Ired. L. (32 N. Car.) 295 ; Hockaday v. Drye, 7 Okla. 288 ; Happy v. Prickett, 24- Wash. 290, a case of foreign assignment and attachment by do- mestic creditors. Preference Not Warranting Attachment. — On the withdrawal of one partner from an insol- vent firm the remaining partners assumed all debts, and one week thereafter assigned for the benefit of creditors with preference of a debt secured by mortgage on the withdrawing mem- ber's, individual property. It was held that such preference did not furnish ground for an attachment. Vahlberg v. Birnbaum, 64 Ark. 207. Where No Fraud Inheres in the Assignment itself, the fact that the debt sued for was fraudulently contracted furnishes no ground for the seizure by attachment of property cov- ered by a deed of general assignment made by the debtor. Marlin v. Tichgraeber, 63 Kan. 521. An Attaching Creditor May Show that the As- signment Was Invalid because not authorized by a legal meeting of the directors of the as- signing corporation. Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell Show Printing Co., 144 Mo. 336, 66 Am. St. Rep. 425. Creditors Who Have Not Accepted may attack though assenting creditors may not, in a case of a trust deed to secure certain creditors. Kingman v. Cornell-Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282. 131. 1. Foreign Attaching Creditors, — In Roberts v. Norcross, 69 N. H. 533, it was held that a general assignment executed in some other state defeats the rights of subsequent at- tachments even where the trustee appointed in the deed has no notice of the assignment. 2. Property Remaining in Possession of Assignor — See George v. Pierce, 123 Cal. 172. See further the title Fraudulent Sales and Con- veyances, 311. 4 et seq. 1 32. 4. Partnership Assignment. — See Car- ter-Battle Grocer Co. v. Jackson, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 353- Any Creditor May Attack Assignment. — See Martin Browne Co. v- Morris, 1 Indian Ter. 495- In Kentucky, where an assignee refuses to 405 139-137 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. Where Only One Claim 133. Assenting Creditors. — See ftote 2. Creditors Accepting Benefits. — See notes 3, 4. 134. c. Priority of Attacking Creditors Fraudulent. — See note 3. 4. Creditors' Claims and Dividends — a. Presentation of Claims. — See note 4. 136. d. What Acts of Creditor Debar His Claim. — See note 2. 137. See note 1. bring an action to recover property fraudu- lently transferred by a debtor, the creditors may bring such an action, and the assignee, being made a party defendant and failing to take advantage of his right to prosecute the action, is precluded from so doing. Wisdom v. Russell, (Ky. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 284. A creditor must represent one-fourth of the claims against an assigned estate before he is entitled to bring an action in the Circuit Court for its settlement. Mattingly v. Elder, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 215, holding the statutory provision to be constitutional. 133. 2. Assenting Creditors. — Memphis Sav. Bank v. Houchens, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 96; Smith v. Herrell, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 425. And vice versa, creditors who attack an as- signment for fraud cannot claim benefits under it. Brown's Estate, 193 Pa. St. 281. But assenting creditors who reserve their claims against the officers of the assigning cor- poration may proceed against the officers in equity, after obtaining judgment against the corporation. Hudson v. J. B. Parker Mach. Co., 173 Mass. 242. 3. Where Creditor Receives Benefits. — Keith v. Arthur, 98 Wis. 189 ; Rielle v. Reid, 26 Ont. App. 54. But where an assignment reserves as ex- empt property not exempt because the debt was contracted for the purchase money of that very property, the creditor can proceed against such property. Cator v. Blount, 41 Fla. 138. A creditor who elects to accept the benefit of a provision contained in a deed of assign- ment cannot attack provisions contained in it in favor of other creditors on the ground of fraud. He must either accept or reject it in toto. Weiser v. Muir, 103 Ky. 499. Where a guardian wrongfully deposited moneys belonging to his ward, in a bank which failed, his acceptance of dividends from the assignee- does not estop the ward from claim- ing the full amount. Matter of Knapp, 101 Iowa 488. 4. See Matter of Garver, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 262 ; McLaughlin v. Park City Bank, 22 Utah 473 ; In re Gilbert, 94 Wis. 108. " The plaintiff cannot at the same time attack the transfer for fraud and claim rights under it." Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 295. 134. 3. National Bank of Commerce v. Ripley, 161 Mo. 126. 4. Iowa. — The Iowa statute requiring the filing of claims within three months has no application to the filing of an application for a preference, the claim for payment having been duly filed within the statutory time. Mat- ter of Knapp, 1 01 Iowa 488. 406 Illinois. — To the same effect as Kean v. Lowe, 147 111. 564, stated in the original note, see Rassieur v. Jenkins, 170 111. 503; H. B. Claflin Co. v. Kelley, 169 Ilk 20; Manufac- turers' Paper Co. v. Royal Trust Co., 98 111. App. 41. See also Higinbotham v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 182 111. 68. When the drawee of a draft presented his claim within the statutory period of three months, the payee will, be subrogated to his rights. Joliet Nat. Bank v. O'Donnell, 165 111. 32- A discontinuance before the period of three months has elapsed does not bar a creditor from his claim when he has not proved it. Linington v. Dickinson, 67 111. App. 266; Kel- ley v. Leith, 70 111. App. 35. Kansas. — See Barton v. Sticher, 5 Kan. App. 577- New Hampshire. — Claims against an insol- vent should date from the appointment of .the assignee. Bank Com'rs v. Security Trust Co., 70 N. H. 543. New York. — In Matter of Bawlby, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 311, a claim filed with the assignee after distribution, but before final decree, was allowed.* In Texas the statutes provide that creditors, to be entitled to share under the assignment, must assent thereto within four months. P-atty v. City Bank, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475. A cred- itor who garnishes property of the assignor and then assents within the period, but reserv- ing his rights under the garnishment, is not entitled to participate. Moody v. Templeman, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 374. The Wisconsin Statutes providing for the fil- ing of claims against an assignor's estate do not relate to liabilities incurred by the assignee after the assignment. Ringenoldus v. Abresch, 119 Wis. 410. 136. 2. Tiling Claims in Bankruptcy. — A creditor who files a claim in bankruptcy pro- ceedings is not thereby debarred from proving his claim against an assignee for the benefit of creditors, but may hold the assignee and his sureties liable on their bond. Ringenoldus v. Abresch, 119 Wis. 410. Obtaining Judgment, on a claim does not bar the creditor from proving, the claim under an assignment. Lacy v. Gunn, 144 Cal. 511. The Pendency of .an Action by creditors on their claims is no bar. to an action by them for the settlement of an assigned estate. Mattingly v. Elder, (Ky. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 215. A Creditor Who Opposes an Assignment cannot prorate with creditors who complied with the act. Huddleson u. Polk, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 624. 137. 1. Attaching Creditor. — To the same effect as Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo. 583, VqI.III. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, 137-141 137. Contesting Other Claims. — See note 2. e. Proof of Claims. — See note 3. 138. /. What Claims Are Provable. — See note 3. Judgments on Mature Demands. — See note 4. 139. Surety's Payment Aftier Assignment. — See note I. Claim of Creditor's Transferee. — See note 3. g. The Assignee's Decision — Statutes. — See note 4. 140. 5. Dividends of Partnership Creditors. — See note 1. 141. 6. Dividends of Secured Creditors — The Prevailing guie. — See note 2. stated in the original note, see Adler-Goldman Commission Co. v. People's Bank, 65 Ark. 380. See also Kerslake v. Brower Lumber Co., 40 Oregon 44. But when attaching judgment creditors es- tablished that an assignment -was fraudulent as to them, and as to them it was set aside, but they obtained nothing on their judgments, they were allowed to prove pro rata against the estate. Matter of Garver, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 262, 176 N. Y. 386. So a creditor who sues out an attachment in ignorance of the assignment is not precluded from claiming thereunder. National Bank of Commerce v. Graham, 16 Colo. App. 498. Creditor in Another State. — In Wisconsin it has been held that a creditor in Illinois with whom cash of the assignor had been deposited could apply such cash to his claims arid still proye against the estate for the unpaid balance. Segnitz v. Garden City Banking, etc., Co., 107 Wis. 171, 81 Am. St. Rep. 830. 137. 2. Dreyfus v. Union Nat. Bank, 164 111. 83. 3. The Burden of Proof is on the claimant. Rip- pelmeyer v. P. Hanson Hiss Mfg. Co., 90 Md. 386. 138. 3. Debts Capable of Liquidation at As- signment Provable. — Hill v. Graham, 1 1 Colo. App. 536; Smith v. Armour, 1 Penn. (Del.) 361, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 138; Moore v. Thompson, 93 Mo. App. 336; Jones's Estate, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 427. Illustrations. — When the maker of a note assigns for benefit of creditors, the holder can prove the full amount against the estate, even though an indorser has made part payment subsequent to the assignment. Beals v. Mayher, 174 Mass. 470, 75 Am. St. Rep. 367. When an indorser on a note assigns all his property for benefit of creditors, before the maturity of the note, the note is none the less a claim against the estate. In re Voetter, 7 Pa. Disf. 230, 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 355. A note on which an assignor for creditors is liable, and which matures after the assign- ment but during pendency of the proceedings, is a provable claim. In re Sherry, 101 Wis. n. Damages for Breach of Contract are provable. Laclede Power Co>. v. Stillwell, 97 Mo. App. 258. Surety. - — In Alabama it is held that where the maker of a note assigns for the benefit of creditors a surety is a creditor. Smith v. Mc- Cadden, 138 Ala. 284. A mortgagee's Claim against the assigned es- tate should be filed with the assignee. In re Lewis Invest. Co., (Iowa 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 218. Creditor's Sight of Set-off. — A creditor's right to have a debt due, from him to the assignor set off against his claim upon the assigned es- tate extends only to claims existing at the date of the assignment, and not tq those sub- sequently accruing. Matter of Hatch, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 16. Attorney's Fees. — Creditors are not entitled to attorney's fees incurred in attaching the as- signment. Parkhurst, etc., Co. v. Etna Coal Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 58. Debts to Become Due as well as debts due may be proved by a creditor, in Illinois, against the estate of an assignor for benefit of cred- itors. H. B. ClaHin Co. v- Kelley, 169 HI. 20. Debts Incurred Subsequent to the Assignment cannot be proved against the estate. Buckler v. Trigg, 68 S. W- Rep. 637, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 410. 4. Judgment Subsequent to Assignment. — [n an action ex delicto brought before the assign- ment, judgment obtained after the assignmept. is provable as a claim against the estate. Lally v. Farr, 9 Ohio Dec. 119, 6 Ohio N. P. 73. 139. 1. Payment by Surety After Assignment — Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 139. 3. Smith v. Craft, 58 S. W. Rep. 500, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 643 ; Huddleson v. Polk, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W- Rep. 624; Voorhees v. Porter, 134 N. Car. 591. See also Matter of Dwight, 6; N. Y. App. Div. 357. 4. Missouri. — See Rice v. McClure, 74 Mo. App. 379; Elsea v. Pryor, 87 Mo. App- 158. Kansas. — An assignee's decision is binding upon him unless set aside by a competent court. Matthewson v. Caldwell, 59 Kan. 126. See also Kohn v. Hine, 7 Kan. App. 776. 140. 1. Bartlett v. Meyer-Schmidt Grocer Co., 65 Ark. 290 ; Matter of Dauchy, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 383 ; Rollins v. Humphrey, 98 Wis. 66. See also the title Partnership, 192. 7 et seq. 141. 2. Secured Creditors. — Palmer v. Cul- verwell, 85 L. T. N. S. 758;. Merrili v. Na- tional Bank, 173 U. S. 142, citing 3 En- cyclo. of Law and Eq. [Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law] (2d ed.) 141 ; Hendrie v. Graham, 14 Colo. App. 13; Knapp v. McCaf- frey, 178 111. 107, 69 Am. St. Rep. 290; Fried- lander v. Fenton, 180 111. 312, 72 Am. St. Rep. 207 ; Mead v. Randall, 68 Minn. 233 ; Bank Com'rs v. Security Trust Co., 70 N. H. 543 ; Matter of Bicknell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 302 ; Williams v. Overholt, 46 W. Va. 339. In Kentucky secured creditors must first re- alize on their security and then share pro rata for the balance due. Weller v. Hull, 74 S. W. Rep. 172, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2185. See also Bell, etc., Co. v. Kentucky Glass W OI "ks Co., 65 S. W. Rep. 802, 23 Ky. L. Rep, 1934. Where a creditor has a lien on realty and 407 141-149 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. Vol. III. 141. The Minority Bule. — See note 3. 142. See note 1. 143. 7. Priority and Dividends of Preferred Creditors — a. ASSIGNEE S Expenses a First Lien. — See note i. c. State Claims and Taxes. — See note 4. 144. e. Claims for Rent. — See note 3. 146. XVI. Rights and Title of Purchases at Assignee's Sale — 1. In General — No Specific Lien by Creditors. — See note 5. 148. 3. Purchaser's Refusal to Consummate Sale — Cloud on Title. — See note 5. XVII. Death, Resignation, ob Removal of Assignee — 1. Death or Resignation. — See notes 7, 8. 149. 2. Removal — a. In General. — See note 2. New York statute. — See note 6. personalty, payment should be made at the rate of one-half from each fund. New York Public Library v. Tilden, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 169. In New York, while a secured creditor is al- lowed to prove his whole claim, regardless of any collateral he may have as security, yet if he realizes on the security and then proves his claim it will be reduced by the amount realized. Matter of Sawyer, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 300. In Texas a secured creditor may be required by a suit in equity to exhaust his securities before claiming against the fund that others have in common with him. Ohio Cultivator Co. v. People's Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 643. 141. 3. Maryland. — Matter of Woods, 52 Md. 520. Iowa. — In re Wise, 121 Iowa 359. Mississippi. — A secured creditor must credit the value of his collateral to the assigned es- tate before he can share ratably. Union, etc., Bank v. Duncan, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 690. 142. 1. Doolittle v. Smith, 104 Iowa 403, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 141 [142]. 143. 1. Expense of Execution of Trust. — The expense of executing the assignment is a charge up6n the assigned property, to be paid before the claims of creditors, while under cer- tain conditions the statutes provide for the re- turn of the assigned property only upon proof being filed of the payment of all proved claims and payment by the assignor of the expenses of executing the trust. Ringenoldus v. Abresch, 119 Wis. 410, 4. State Claims. — In New York claims for personal taxes of the assignor have priority over all other claims. Matter of Ripsom, etc., Fur Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 56. An assignee who has refused to accept a leasehold of his assignor (see supra, this title, 125. 2) cannot be compelled, under the Mary- land statutes making lessees liable for taxes and making taxes prior liens, to pay the taxes on such leasehold. Parlett v. Dugan, 85 Md. 407. 144. 3. Judgment Creditor Has No Lien for Bent Accruing After Assignment. — Mann v. Poole, 48 S. Car. 154. 146. 5. The Pennsylvania Statute provides that a confirmed sale by an assignee discharges all liens against the realty sold, but a valid covenant for support running with the land is not discharged thereby. Bonebrake v. Sum- mers, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 55, 43 W. N. C. (Pa.) 568. 148. 5. Notice Bars Bight to Perfect Title. — Under a sale by order of court, a purchaser is bound by notice that there is a claimant to the land and that such claimant is in possession. Sayers v. Phillips, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 343. A Purchaser Has a Bight to a Clear Title; and when he buys property that is subject to a vendor's lien, of which he has been kept in ignorance, he may deduct the amount of such lien from the purchase price. Linn v. Collins, 47 W. Va. 250, 81 Am. St. Rep. 788. 7. Death of Assignee, — Congress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279; Andrews v. Wilson, 114 Ky. 671. An Administrator Does Not Succeed to the rights and duties of a deceased assignee under the New York General Assignment Law. Hayne v. Sealy, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 243. 8. An Accepted Besignation Severs an Assignee's Connection with the assigned estate, and he cannot be heard in opposition to the appoint- ment of a successor. State v. Johnson, 105 Wis. 164. 149. 2. Removal of Assignee — General Bule. — Long v. Campbell, 133 Ala. 353; Plotke v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 86 111. App. 582; Con- gress Constr. Co. v. Farson, etc., Co., 101 111. App. 279 ; Boatmen's Bank Appeal, 74 Mo. App. 60 ; Loucheim v. Casperson, 61 N. J. Eq. 529; Havens v. Sibbald, (N. J. 1898) 41 Atl. Rep. 371 ; In re Commercial Bank, 6 Ohio Dec. 105; Ahl's Estate, 192 Pa. St. 370; Bry- son v. Wood, 187 Pa. St. 366; Birmingham Drug Co. v. Freeman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451; Taylor v. Mahoney, 94 Va. 508 ; Morgan v. South Milwaukee Lake View Co., 100 Wis. 465. See also Re Wilson, 6 Ont. L. Rep. 564. Mere Misunderstanding or Ignorance of the Duties Imposed has been held not to be suf- ficient ground for removal. Putnam v. Tim- othy Dry-Goods, etc., Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 454. Statutory Grounds Exclusive. — In Illinois the County Court cannot remove an assignee for the benefit of creditors except for the causes specified in the statute. Vose v. Cratty, 66 111. Ar>p. 472. 6. An Assignee Who Suffered Judgment on a Valid Claim against the assigned estate will not be removed when fraud or fraudulent in- 408 Vol. III. ASSIGNMENTS, ETC. — A T. 150-168 150. b. Failure to Furnish Bond and Inventory. — See note 2. 152. XVIII. Close or Trust — Assignor's Eights — 1. Unexecuted Trust Hot to Be Closed — c. Presumption from Lapse of Time. — See note 1. 154. 3. Discontinuance — Reconveyance to Assignor. — See note 5. 4. Discharge of Assignor. — See note 6. 156. ASSIGNS. — See note 3 . 1 60. ASSIST — ASSISTANT — ASSISTANCE. 161. ASSISTANCE, WRIT OF. — See note 1. 1 62. ASSOCIATION. — See note 7. 163. See note 1. ASSUME. — See note 3. 167. ASYLUM. — See note 2. AT. — See note 3. 168. See note 1. ■See note 1. tent is not shown. Markell v. Hill, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 191, 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 133. 150. 2. Failure to Furnish Bond and In- ventory. — Brown v. Parker, (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 446. The Texas statute provides for an assignee's removal at the instance of any creditor where no bond has been given. Birmingham Drug Co. ■v. Freeman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451. Failure to Fay the Premium on a Bond fur- nished by a bonding company is ground for removal in Minnesota. American Surety Co. v. Nelson, 77 Minn. 402. 152. 1. Lapse of Time — Presumption. — Farnsworth v. Doom, 109 Ky. 794. 154. 5. Illinois Statute. — Kelley v. Leith, 176 111. 311 ; Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. Royal Trust Co., 98 111. App. 41. The Illinois statute provides for a discon- tinuance upon consent of a majority in num- ber and amount of the creditors. Armour v. Gold, 185 111. 34. But within the three months allowed to creditors for filing claims such dis- continuance cannot be allowed so as to bar the claim of a creditor filed thereafter and within the statutory period. Higinbotham v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 182 111. 68; Linington v. Dickinson, 67 111. App. 266. Upon a discontinuance the court should not order the assignee to transfer the estate to a person who has bought up a large percentage of the creditor's claims. Shaw v. Howe, 66 111. App. 550. 6. Settlement of Accounts — Statutes. — The Kentucky statutes providing for an assignee's settlement of his accounts require a settlement with the court and not with the judge of the county, and a settlement made with the judge alone amounts merely to a filing of claims al- lowed and not allowed. McNamara v. Schwani- ger, 106 Ky. 1. 156. 3. Glenn v. Caldwell, 74 Miss. 49. Implies Power to Transfer. — Johnson v. Mor- ton, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 296. Assignee Equivalent to Assign. — Hoffeld v. U. S., 186 U. S. 273. Devisee. — A devisee is included in the term assign. Smith v. Baxter, 62 N. J. Eq. 209. Mortgagee. — McKibbon v. Williams, 24 Ont. App. 122; Nichols v. Tingstad, 10 N. Dak. 172. Swamp Lands. — The word assigns, as used in a swamp land statute, refers to one to whom the indebtedness was assigned and not to the purchaser of the land. Carpenter v. San Fran- cisco Sav. Union, 128 Cal. 516. Public Lands, — The word assigns, in the Act of Congress providing that where entries of public lands are canceled, the entryman, his heirs or assigns, shall be repaid the purchase money, etc., means one who derives from the original entryman by the voluntary act of the latter. U. S. v. Commonwealth Title Ins., etc., Co., 193 U. S. 651. Policy of Insurance. — Ladd v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., 116 Fed. Rep. 878. 160. 1. Assistant Distinguished from Deputy. — ■ State v. Longfellow, 95 Mo. App. 667. 161. 1. Sills v. Goodyear, 88 Mo. App. 320, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 161. 162. 7. Allen v. Stevens, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 507, reversed in 161 N. Y. 122, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 162. 163. 1. Allen v. Stevens, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 507, reversed in 161 N. Y. 122, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 162 [163]. Distinguished from Corporation for Purposes of Transfer Tax. — A " corporation " has a definite legal meaning, and differs essentially from an association, which may or may not be incor- porated. Matter of Graves, 171 N. Y. 40. 3. Assuming Lease. — See Springer v. De Wolf, 194 111. 218. Mortgages — Whether the Word "Assumes " Imposes a Personal Liability. — Petteys v. Comer, 34 Oregon 36 ; Eggleston v. Morrison, 84 111. App. 625. 167. 2. Soldiers' Home. — Powell v. Spack- man, 7 Idaho 692 ; Lawrence v. Leidigh, 58 Kan. 594; Matter of Smith, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) '384. 3. Old Ladies' Home v. Hoffman, 117 Iowa 716. "At" in the Sense of " In " — Indictment Volk v. Westerville, n Ohio Dec. 144, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 168. In this case it was said : " The preposition at, used in indictments, informations, and affi- davits in criminal prosecutions, is equivalent to the preposition 'in' or 'within.'" 16§. 1. Rogers v. Galloway Female College, 64 Ark. 627 ; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Stringer, (Ark. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 280; Wood 409 171-179 AT— ATTACH. Vol. iii. 171. 174. jiote I. 175. 177. 179. See note I. At and from a Port (in Policies of Marine Insurance). At Least. — See note I. At Once. — See note i. [ATLANTIC SEABOARD. — See note 2a.) ATTACH. — See note 3. See v. Stafford Springs, 74 Conn. 437 ; Hollmann v. Conlon, 143 Mo. 369; Waynesville v. Satter- thwait, 136 N. Car. 226; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Roberts, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 522. Notice — Posting. — Compare Allen v. Allen, 114 Wis. 615, distinguishing Hilgers v. Quinney, 51 Wis. 62, and holding that posting at a pub- lic place is substantially equivalent to posting " in " a public place. A Mortgage on certain property at Attalla, does not necessarily mean in, but in or near, Attalla. The preposition at denotes primarily " nearness, presence, or direction towards." Webst. Diet. O'Conner v. Nadel, 117 Ala. 595. At the Same Time and Place — Fellow-servant Rule, — In construing an act providing that to constitute two or more employees fellow ser- vants they must be " working together at the same time and place," the court said : " While at indicates nearness in time and place, it does not demand an exact coincidence as to either, but only that it shall be sufficiently so to afford the employees a reasonable opportunity of ob- serving the conduct of each other with a view of guarding themselves against injury there- from. We are of opinion that the engineer and switchman were working together at the same time and place at the time of the acci- dent." Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Warner, 89 Tex. 475. And see the title Fellow Servants. At or Near. — An averment that a person was killed " at or near " the private crossing should be construed that she was killed at a place on the track other than the crossing, because plead- ings are to be construed most strongly against the pleader. Davis v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., (Ky. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 275. At in the Sense of After. — Tacoma Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 33 Wash. 285. 171. 1. At or Before. — Upon an agreement to reimburse a purchaser of stock for any loss incurred at or before the expiration of five years before a certain date, it was held that the words " at or before " meant the day or the date mentioned, and that an action brought prior thereto on this agreement was premature. Wilson v. Bicknell, 170 Mass. 259. Filling Blanks — Bills and Notes. — Cox v. Alexander, 30 Oregon 438. 174. 1. By a policy on freight "at and from any port or ports of loading on the west coast of South America to any port or ports of discharge in the United Kingdom " the freight was to be covered " from the time of the engagement of the goods." Goods were engaged for the vessel which was to earn the freight, and were ready for shipment in her at the time of her loss, which occurred before she arrived at her first loading port on the west coast of South America. It was held that the " engage- ment " clause must be construed with reference to the voyage described in the policy, and, there- fore, as the vessel had not arrived at her first loading port on the west coast of South America, the risk had not attached. The Copernicus, (1896) P. 237. 175. 1. Attachment. — Courson v. Parker, 39 W. Va. 521. 177. 1. Reasonable Time. — Where a ma- chine was sold under a warranty that if not satisfactory it should be returned to the agent at once, it was held that such warranty re- quired its return within, a reasonable time, under the circumstances of the case. Warder, etc., Co. v. Home, iro Iowa 285. See also Hirsch v. Annin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 228 ; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. War- field, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 513. Where an order expressly stipulated that goods were to be shipped at once, and the goods were not shipped until more than two weeks afterwards, and after the occasion for which they were desired had passed, there is such a breach of the contract as to prevent a recovery. Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Hamilton, 132 Ala. 593. 179. 2a. In construing a contract for the sale of a fishing plant together with a covenant not to engage in a like business on the Atlantic seaboard for a period of twenty years, the court said : " The term ' Atlantic seaboard,' in its ordinary interpretation, would seem to be broad enough to include such indentations in the coast as Delaware, New York, or Massa- chusetts bay, and, at least, such a location on Chesapeake bay as the one occupied by defend- ants." Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, (C. C. A.) 130 Fed. Rep. 533. 3. Public Lands. — Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Colburn, 164 U. S. 383, following Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 644. 410 ATTACHMENT. By Leo Goodman. 183. I. DEFINITION — Attachment of Property — As Fart of Service of Process at Common Law to, Compel. Appearance. — See note 4. II. Origin of the Proceeding. — See note 6. III. Nature of the Proceeding — 1. An Auxiliary Remedy. — See 184. note 3. %, A Purely Legal Proceeding. — See note 6. 1 85. 3. Remedy Extraordinary, Statutory, and in Derogation of the Common Law — Rule of Construction. — See note I. 4. Whether the Proceeding Is in Personam or in Rem. — See notes 3, 4. 186. See notes 1, 2. 5. Extraterritorial Operation of the Proceeding. — See note 4. 187. IV. Object of the Proceeding — in the united states. — See notes 1,3. 188. V. In What Causes Attachments May Be Had— 1. Actions for Money or Damages — c . DAMAGES — General Rule — Must Be Capable of Ascertainment. — See note 4. 183. 4. Attachment of Property as Part of Service of Process at Common Law. — Penoy ar v. Kelsey, 150 N. Y. 77. 6. The Proceeding Unknown at Common Law. — Blair v. Morgan, 59 S. Car. 52, per Mclver, C. J., dissenting, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 183, 184; Kildare Lumber Co. v. Atlanta Bank, 91 Tex. 95. 184. 3. An Auxiliary Remedy. — Hoffman v. Henderson, 145 Ind. 613; U. S. Capsule Co. 95 Am. St. Rep. 712; Strouse v. Miller, 3 Dauphin Co. Rep. (Pa.) 90. See also Le Roy v. Jacobosky, 136 N. Car. 443; Piper v. Piper, 7 Pa. Dist. 135, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 372. But see Williamson v. Nealy, 119 N. Car. 339. 2. Property in the Hands of Trustee. ■ — See R. T. Davis Mill Co. v. Bangs, 6 Kan. App. 38 ; Andrews v. Steele City Bank, 57 Neb. 173. 4. Partnership Property. — See Carlisle v. Mc- Alester, 3 Indian Ter. 164. Compare Home v. Petty, 192 Pa. St. 32. And see the title Part- nership, 102. 4. et seq. 213. 8. Salaries of Public Officials. — Over- turf v. Gerlach, 62 Ohio St. 127, 78 Am. St. Rep. 704. 9. Life-insurance Policies. — Amberg v. Manhat- tan L. Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 343. Com- pare Kratzenstein v. Lehman, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 590. 11. Property Mortgaged, Pawned, or Bailed, — Cox v. Harris, 64 Ark. 213, 62 Am. St. Rep. 187; Sabel v. Planters Nat. Bank, no Ky. 299. Mortgaged or Pledged Property Attachable by Statute. — Johnson v. Louisville City Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 710; Fife v. Ford, 67 N. H. 539 ; Simpson v. Jersey City Contract- ing Co., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 17, affirmed r65 N. Y. 193 I Thum v. Pingree, 21 Utah 348. Goods in Transitu may be attached in Michi- gan and New Mexico. Stock v. Reynolds, 121 Mich. 356 ; Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Bossut, 10 N. Mex. 322. 416 Vol. III. ATTACHMENT. 914-939 914. IX. Right of Intervention — who May intervene. — See note 7. 915. X. Effect of Attachment of Property — 1. Rights of Plaintiff. — See note 1. 2. Rights of Officer — Attachment of Personalty. — See note 2» Attaohment of Realty. — See note 3. 916. XI. Lien of Attachment — 2. Essentials to Validity of the Lien — A Valid Levy. — See note 8. 917. Possession of Property by Attaching Officer — Taking Possession. — See note I. 91 8. 3. Nature of the Lien — Whether strictly a Lien. — See note I. 919. An Actual Security. — See note 2. Right of Legislature to Divest Lien of Attachment See note 4. 990. A Conditional Security. — See note I . 4. When Lien Commences. — See notes 4, 5. 991. Where Petition Is Amended. — See note I. Where Affidavit Is Amended. — See note 3. 999. 5. Extent of Lien — a. What Property Bound — interest of fiebtor at Time Of Levy. — See note 2. 6. Duration of Lien. — See note 8, 314. 7. Right to Intervene — To Whom Avail- able — California. — McEldowney v. Madden, 124 Cal. 108. Colorado. — Hannan v. Connett, 10 Colo. App, 171. District of Columbia. — Daniels v. Solomon, M App. Cas. (D. C.) 163. Iowa. — Ohde v. Hoffman, (Iowa 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 750. Kansas. — Symns Grocer Co. v. Lee, 9 Kan. App. 574- Maryland. — Palmer v. Hughes, 84 Md. 652. Missouri. — Henry Petring Grocer Co. v. Eastwood, 79 Mo. App. 270. Nebraska. — Haines v. Stewart, (Neb. 1902) 91 N. W. Rep. 539. Oklahoma. — Miller f . Campbell Commission Co., 13 Okla. 75 ; Hockaday v. Drye, 7 Okla. 288. Texas. — Barkley v. Wood, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 717; Murphy v. Nash, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 944; Boltz v. Engelke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 47- West Virginia. — Miller v. White, 46 W. Va. 67, 76 Am. St, Rep. 791. Wyoming. — Stanley f. Foote, 9 Wyo. 335. Junior Attaching Creditors. — Standard Im- plement Co. *. Lansing Wagon Works, 58 Kan. 12$; Wichita Nat. Bank v. Wichita Produce Co., 8 Kan. App. 40 ; Coyle Mercantile Co. v. Nix, 7 Okla, 267. 215. 1. Bowlby v. De Wit, 4? W. Va. 323, citing 3 Am. and Eng. EncVc. of Law (zd ed.) "S- 2, Laughlih v. Reed, 89 Me. 226 j Rochester Lumber Co. v. Locke, 72 N. H. 22. 3. See American Nat. Bank v. Childs, 49 La. Attn. 1339, 216. 8. Actual and Valid Levy. — Smith v. Packard, 98 Fed. Rep. 793, 39 C. C. A. 294, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. Of Law (2d ed.) 216. 217. 1. Smith v. Packard, 98 Fed. Rep. 793. 39 C. C A. 294, quoting 3 Am. and Eng 1 . Encyc:. of Law (id ed.) 216 [217I. 218. 1. For a Full Discussion of the Nature of an Attachment Lien see McFadden v. Blocker, a Indian Ter. 260. I Supp. E. of L.— if 417 219. 2. Byers v. McEniry, 117 Iowa 499, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 218, 219. 4. Retrospective Laws Affecting Lien of Attach- ments. — See McFadden f. Blocker, 2 Indian Ter. 260. 220. 1. Goddard-Peek Grocery Co. to. Ad- ler-Goldman Commission Co., 67 Ark. 3^9, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 219; Reynolds v. Nesbitt, 196 Pa. St. 636, 79 Am, St, Rep. 736. 4. Statute Giving Lien from Delivery of Order for Attachment to Sheriff. — Under Civ. Code Ky., § 212, and Act Pa., March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, the lien of an attachment begins from the delivery of the writ to the sheriff. Exchange Bank v. Gillispie, (Ky. 1897) 43 S.- W. Rep. 401 ; Rice v. Walinszius, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 3219. Missouri. — Winningharn v. Trueblood, 149 Mo. 572. 8. Lien from Tiitte Of Levy. — McFadden *. Blocker, 2 Indian Ter. 260 ; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Converse, toi Iowa 307; Schoonover V-. Os- borne, nt Iowa 140, 82 Am. St. Rep. 496; R. T. Davis Mill Co. v, Bangs, 6 Kan. App. 38; German Looking Glass Plate Co. *. Asheville Furniture, etc., Co,, 126 N. Car. 888, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 220. lien from Date of Officer's Return.-^ By stat- ute in Arizona and Oregon the lien does not commence until a recording of the levy. Meha- ger V. Farrell, (Ariz. 1899) 57 Pac. Rep. 607 ; Schlosser v. Beemer, 40 Oregon 41 2, 221. 1. Amendment Curing Merely Formal Defects. — Symms Grocer Co. i>. Burriharri, 6 Okla. 618. 5. Amendment of Affidavit, — See Goodman v. Henry, 42 W. Va. % 26. 222. 2. La Salle Pressed Brick Co. v. Coe, 65 111. App. 6ig ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Omaha First Nat. Bank, 58 Neb. 548. 6. StillniaH v. Harher, (Kan. 1964) 78 Pac. Rep, 836; Smith v. Parkersbiirg Co-operative Assoc, 48 W. Va. 232. Statutory Limitation on Duration Of tied. — See Central Trust Co. *. Worcester Cycle Mfg. Co., 114 Fed. Rep. 659 (Connecticut Statute); Fletcher V. Tuttle, gy Me, 49 j, 333-231 ATTACHMENT. Vol. III. 233. See note I. XII. Pbiobities — 1. General Principles. — See note 6. 224. 2. Between Attachments — a. In General. — See note 2. b. SUCCESSIVE ATTACHMENTS — Bule Giving Priority in Order of Levy. — See note 3. 226. Bule Giving Priority in Order of Delivery of Writ to Officer. — See note I. Conditional Delivery of Writ to Officer. — See note 2. d. Priority of Junior Attachment — By illegality of senior Attach- ments. — See note 5. 227. Fraudulent Attachments. — See note I . 228. 3. Between Attachment and Other Liens, — See notes 1, 3, 4. 229. 4. Between Attachment and Alienations — a.~ Deeds and Mort- gages. — See note 8. b. Sales of Personalty. — See notes 9, 10. c. Sales of Stock. — See note 11. 230. 5. As Affected by the Recording Acts. — See note 2. XIII. Dissolution — 1. What Will Effect Dissolntion — a. Bail and Porthcoming Bonds — (1) In General. — See notes 5, 6. 23 1 . The Distinction Between a Bail Bond and a Delivery Bond. — See notes I, 2. (2) Estoppel by Execution. — See note 3. Delay in Issuing Execution. — Where the rights of third parties do not intervene no delay in the execution after judgment ought to destroy the lien unless there is a clear intention to abandon. Lant v. Manley, 75 Fed. Rep. 627, 43 U. S. App. 623. 223. 1. Stillman v. Hamer, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 836. 6. In re Kemp, 10 1 Fed. Rep. 689. Fraudulent Prior Attachment. — Interstate Nat. Bank v. Stuart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 963. 224. 2. Lutter v. Grosse, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 278. 3. MacVeagh v. Royston, 71 111. App. 617; Western Nat. Bank v. National Union Bank, 91 Md. 613 ; R. Wallace, etc., Mfg. Co. u. Sharick, 15 Wash. 643. 226. 1. Under Statutes Directing Levy in the Order of Eeceiving Writs. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Schwarzschild, etc., Co., 58 Kan. 90, 62 Am. St. Rep. 604. 2. Connolley v. Eisman, 60 S. W. Rep. 372, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1247. S. An Attachment of Firm Property for a Firm Debt, though subsequent in point' of time, takes priority of an attachment of firm property for a personal debt of one of the firm. Putnam v. Loeb, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 391. 227. 1. First Attachment Partly Fraudulent. — Hodden v. Dooley, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 274. 228. 1. Norton v. Hope Milling, etc., Co., 101 Ky. 223 ; Ruston v. Perry Lumber Co., 104 Tenn. 538. 3. Contract for a Future Lien. — Thomas, etc., Co. v. Guenther, 7 Pa. Dist. 48. 4. Watson v. Bonfils, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. j*ep. 157; Moon Bros. Carriage Co. v. Porter, 76 Mo. App. 128. 229. 8. Runner v. Scott, 150 Ind. 441. 9. Cummings v. Gilman, 90 Me. 524. 10. Peycke v. Hazen, 119 Iowa 641; H. A. Thierman Co. v. Laupheimer, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 311-315 311. Forging or Conoooting False Affidavits or Evidence. — See notes 2, 4* Obtaining Honey by False Representations. — See note 6. 312. Bribing or Tampering with a Witness. — See note I. Representing Conflicting Interests. — See note 2. Improperly Advertising to Secure Divorces, — See note 3. 313. Want or Loss of Moral Character. — See note 3. Numerous Other Particular Instances. — See note 6. 315. 3. Effect of Disbarment. — See note 1. — People v. Moutray, 166 111. 630 ; In re Nunn, 73 Minn. 292; Ex p. St. Rayner, (Ore- gon 1902) 70 Pac. Rep. 537. Altering Execution. — In re Crum, 7 N. Dak. 316. 311. 2. Forging Aflldavit.— People v. Hill, 182 111. 425. 4. False Affidavits. — Matter of Wharton, 114 Cal. 367; People v. Harm, 197 111. 137; People v. Hill, 182 111. 425; People v. Moutray, 166 111. 630; In re Crura, 7 N. Dak. 316; Ex p. Finn, 32 Oregon 519, 67 Am. St. Rep. 550; Flanders v. Keefe, 108 Wis. 441. 6. Obtaining Money by Fraud or False Repre- sentations. — People v. Sindlinger, 28 Colo. 258 ; People v. George, 186 111. 122; In re Elliott, (S. Dak. 1904) roo N. W. Rep. 431. Forgery of Letters and of Indorsement on Note. — Ex p. Kindt, 32 Oregon 474. Falsifying Bill of Exceptions and Procuring Falsa Certification of Transcript of Record. — People v. Moutray, 166 111. 630. 312. 1. Tampering with Witness. — See /». re Catron, 8 N. Mex. 253. 2. Reprimand for Representing Conflicting Inter- ests. — Matter of Reifschneider, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 478. 3. Improperly Advertising to Secure Divorces. — People v. Taylor, 32 Colo. 250 ; People v. Smith, 200 111. 442, 93 Am. St. Rep. 206. 313. 8. Loss of Moral Character. — People v. Sindlinger, 28 Colo. 258; People v. Smith, 200 111. 442, 93 Am. St. Rep. 206; People v. Moutray, 166 111. 630 (ignorance no excuse) ; Matter of Cahill, 66 N. J. L. 527 ; In re Swade- ner, 5 Ohio Dec. 598, 7 Ohio N. P. 446. 6. Presenting Imperfect and Partial Statement of Facts. — Matter of V , 10 N. Y. App. Div. 49 r-. Deceit and Lack of Good Faith. — People v. Mead, 29 Colo. 344. Raising Note — Clear Proof Required. — Peo- ple v. Robinson, 32 Colo. 241. Foreclosing Chattel Mortgage Securing Debt to Attorney — No Ground. — People v. Robinson, 32 Colo. 241. Fees Secured — Excessive Charges No Ground. — People v. Robinson, 32 Colo. 241. Deceit and Collusion with Intent to Deceive Court or Party — Iowa Statute. — State v. How- ard, 112 Iowa 256. Fraudulent ' Representation that Divorce Was Secured. — People v. Belinski, 205 111. 564. Admission by Mistake. — In re Brown, 9 Pa. Dist. 103. Subornation of Perjury. — Matter of Metro- politan St. R. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 510. Champertous Contract. — In re Evans, '23 Utah 366, 83 Am. St. Rep. 794- Attempt to Bribe Member of City Council. — Cowley v x Q'Genne!!, 174 M^ass, 253, Attempt to Extort Money by Blackmailing Client. — People v. Varnum, 28 Colo. 349. False Representations to Client and Misappro- priation of Funds. — People v. Betts, 26 Colo. 521. Forging Client's Name to Order for Money. — People v. Walkey, 26 Colo. 483. False Representations to Obtain Employment, — — In re Boone, 83 Fed. Rep. 944. Deceit, Malpractice, and Gross Misconduct. — Bar Assoc, v. Greenhood, 168 Mass. 169. Abusive Language to Former Juror — Disre- spectful and Abusive Language to Opposing Counsel. — In re Crum, 7 N. Dak. 316. Larceny by 'Attorney. — People v. Schintz, 181 111. 574; People v. Manns, 28 Colo. 83. Deceiving Court as to the pecuniary ability of client to pay, thereby securing two fees. In re Byrnes, (Minn. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 045- Infidelity to interest of his client, and with- holding material facts from a judge, have been held sufficient grounds for disbarment. In re Jones, 70 Vt. 71. False Representations as to Collections. — Al- though an attorney falsely represents that no collections have been made on a claim, if the amount collected only equals the minimum -fee for collecting the claim, it is no ground for disbarment. People v. Robinson, 32 Colo. 241. False Levy. — An attorney who directed a sheriff to take property not included in the writ, and to deliver it to the plaintiff, is guilty of but little less than larceny, and should be disbarred. Matter of Goldberg, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 357. Unlawfully Procuring the Absence of an Execu- tion Debtor, contrary to the order of the court re- quiring appearance for examination at a stated time, with intent to cause a failure of justice, is ground for disbarment. Ex p. Miller, 37 Oregon 304. Refusal to Proceed with a case until compen- sation is made, where there was no contract for the compensation which the attorney claimed, is no such lack of faith on the attor- ney's part in discharge of duty to his client, as authorizes removal. Payette v. Willis, 23. Wash. 299. Straw Bonds, — When a lawyer induces .a court to enter an order, allowing an appeal, by presenting an appeal bond with sureties whom he knows to be worthless or fictitious persons, he practices a fraud upon the court for which he may be disbarred. People v. Pickler, 186 111. 64. 315. 1. Effect of Disbarment. — In re Crum, 72 Minn. 401. State Court Judgment — No Review in Federal Court. — Philbrook v , Newman, §5 Fe4, Rep, J 39. 4?« 316 317 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 316. 4. Nonliability of Judge for Disbarring an Attorney. — See note i. 5. Suspension, — See notes 2, 3. VI. The Relation of Attorney and Client — 1. When Relation Exists — Retainer. — See note 4. 317. Contract of Employment — Offer — Acceptance. — See notes I, 2. State Court Judgment followed in Federal Courts. — U. S. v. Green, 85 Fed. Rep. 857. Disbarred Attorney May Prosecute His Own Claim. — Phiibrook v. Superior Ct., 111 Cal. 31. Brief by Dinbarred Attorney Ignored. — Enges- ser v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 18 Mont. 31. Cannot Apply for Admission as in First Instance. — Matter of King, 54 Ohio St. 415. Disbarment in Colony — No Ground for Disbar- ment in England,- — In re A Solicitor, (1898) 1 Q. B. 331. Kansas Statute — County Attorney Need Not Be Attorney at Law — Disbarment Hakes No Vacancy. — State v. Swan, 60 Kan. 461. A Judgment of a Foreign State disbarring an attorney may be shown to have been reopened and vacated in that state. People v. Miller, 195 111. 621. Rights of Attorney Fending Proceedings. — It is not proper for courts ordinarily to deprive the accused of his rights as an attorney pend- ing the investigation and trial of an applica- tion for disbarment. State v. Goode, 4 Idaho 730. 316. 1. No Liability Even Where Jurisdic- tion Is Exceeded. — ■ Phiibrook v. Newman, 8s Fed. Rep. ijg. 2. Suspension of Attorney. — Bar Assoc. *. Greenhood, 168 Mass, 169 ; Matter of Cahill, 66 N. J. L. 527; Matter of V , 10 N. Y. App. Div. 491; In re Freerks, 11 N. Dak. 120; Ex p. Finn, 32 Oregon 519, 67 Am. St. Rep. 550; In re Smith, 179 Pa. St. 14; Shoemaker's Case, s Pa. Dist. 161, affirmed 2 Pa. Super. Ct, 27. Signing Sureties' Names in Bond. — Ex p. Ditchburn, 32 Oregon 538. Libel Published Without Knowledge. — Ex p. Mason, 29 Oregon 18, 54 Am. St, Rep. 772. False Allegations Reflecting on Character of Judge. ^- Matter of Snow, 27 Utah 265. Compounding a Misdemeanor. — State v. Eager, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 351, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 1. Neglect to Prosecute Offenders Against Prohibi- tion Law. — In re Voss, n N. Dak. 540. Conviction of Felony — Judgment Superseded on Writ of Error. — In re Kirby, 10 S. Dak. 322. Statutory Provision in Massachusetts. — Bar Assoc, v. Greenhood, 168 Mass. 169. The Power to Disbar an attorney is riot an arbi- trary and despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, preju- dice, or personal hostility, but in so doing the court should exercise a sound and just judi- cial discretion. State 0. Stiles, 48 W. Va. 425. Under tlie Missouri Statute, if aft attorney is sought to be removed upon trie accusation of an indictable offense, and the charge does not allege a conviction, he dan only be suspended for six months ; if no indictment is found, or if one is found but fiot prosecuted to a trial in that time, the suspension must be discon- tinued, unless the delay was produced by the absence or procurement of the accused. Mat- ter of Z , 89 Mo, App. 426, When an attorney is not accused of having been convicted of a criminal offense, he may only be suspended until ascertainment of facts according to statute. State v. Gebhardt, 87 Mo. App. 542. Montana Statute — Discretion of Court. — In re Wellcome, 23 Mont. 140. 3. Age of Attorney.^" If he were a young and inexperienced lawyer, who, under stress of temptation, and a failure fully to appreciate his duties to his client, had misappropriated the money of his client, a suspension for a limited term might satisfy the ends of justice." Southworth v. Beatnes, 88 Minn. 31. Withholding Funds — No Disbarment in First Instance. — In re Thresher, 29 Mont. 11. Retention of Money in Good Faith — Error to Suspend. — Hehdrick v. Posey, 104 Ky. 8. 4. Authority Begins from Employment, Not from Institution of Suit. — Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md. 442, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 316; Silver Peak Gold Min. Co. v. Harris, 116 Fed. Rep. 442, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 316. Employment in Anticipation of Suit — Authority to Bind Before Suit. — Dentzel 0. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md. 434- A Retainer is the act of the client in employ- ing his attorney or counselor. It also denotes the fee which is paid, and which prevents the attorney from acting for the client's adversary. Union Surety, etc., Co. v. Tenney, 200 111. 349. 317. 1. Proposal and Acceptance Constitute Relation of Attorney and Client. — In re Kerly, (1901) 1 Ch. 467, 70 L. J. Ch. 189; Orr 0. Brown, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 216; Davis 0. Walker, 13 j Ala. 204; Walsh 0. Helena School Dist. Number One, 17 Mont. 413; Matter of Tracy, 1 N. Y. App.. Div. 113, affirmed 149 N. ,Y. 608 ; Williams V . Lewis, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 623 ; Reese v. Resburgh, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 378. See Blakey 0. New York L. Ins. Co., 28 Ind. App. 428 ; Matter of Sweeney, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 547 ; Simon 0. Shefidan, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 489; Lawall 0. Groirian, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662; Norton 0. Wingerd, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 5:4; Cal- lender v. Turpin, (Tenn. Ch. igoi) 61 S. W. Rep. 1057. Question for Jury, — Richards v. Washburn, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 237. Admissibility of Evidence — Previous Employ- ment.^ Mabry 0. Cheadle, (Iowa 1899) 80 N. W. Rep. 312. Conflicting Evidence — Question for Jury. — Northern Pac. R. Co. 0. Clarke, (C. C. A.) 106 Fed. Rep. 794. Casual Questioning as to Law Constitutes No Employment. — People v. Varnum, 28 Colo. 349. Agreement with Husband Not Binding on Wife. — Whitesell v. New Jersey, etc., R., etc., Co., 68 N. Y. App. Div. 82. Employment by Director for Trust Company. — Germania Safety Vault, etc., Co. 0. Hargis, 64 S. W. Rep. 516, 23 Ky, L. Rep. 874, W Vol. 111. AfPOkNkV AND CLIENT. 317-320 317. 318. 319. note i. 330. note 5. to Client Acting Without Retainer or Authority. — See note 3. Ordinary Scope of Retainer. — See note 6. Retainer by Agent. — See note 3. 2. Who May Act as Attorney — Admission to Bar Is Essential. — See Any One May Appear in His Own Behalf. — See note 3. Prohibition to Judges to Act as Attorneys. — See note I. Presumption that Practicing Attorney Duly Admitted. — See note 3. Suit Not Dismissed, although Brought by Disqualified Attorney. — See note 4. The Legislature Has Power to Restrict the Bight of Attorneys to Appear. — See 3. Consequences of the Relation - See note 6. ■a. Notice to Attorney Notice Receipt for Note for Collection Setting Forth Agreement. — Lavenson v. Wise, 131 Cal. 369. Employment by One of Several Heirs. — Spears v. Ray, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 535. Consent Necessary. — The relation of attorney and client is a personal relation, and can only be entered into by the consent of both parties. Currey v. Butcher, 37 Oregon 386. Employment Essential to Recover Fee; — An at- torney cannot make another person his debtor by voluntarily rendering services in his be- half without his express or implied consent. Lamar v-. Hall, (C. C; A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 79, reversing William Firth Go. v. Millen Cotton Mills, 129 Fed. Rep. 141. Appearance and Conduct of Case, — The fact that an attorney appeared in court with the de- fendant's counsel, and conducted the case to- gether with him to their knowledge, and with- out their objection does not justify the finding of an implied promise to pay, where it appears that the attorney appeared for a codefendant, which was known to the defendant* White v. Esch, 78 Minn. 264. Associate Attorneys. — Where a client retains two attorneys, arid one tells the other to retain his share of the fee for him, it involves no contract establishing the relation of attorney and client. Downs v. Davis, 113 Iowa 529. 317. 3. Brennan-Love Co. v. Mcintosh, 62 Neb. 522. " When a party seeking legal advice consults an attorney at law and secures that advice, the relation of attorney and client is established prima facie." Perkins v. West Coast Lumber Co., 129 Cal. 427. 3. Silver Peak Gold Min. Co. v. Harris, 116 Fed. Rep. 442, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 317; Barrie Public School Board v. Barrie, 19 Ont. Pr. 33. See Downs v. Davis, 113 Iowa 529; Saxton v. Harrington, 52 Neb. 300 ; Whitesell •te 3, 2. To Whom Rule Applies. — See note 4. 336. Parties Between Whom Relation of Attorney and Client Subsequently Established. — See notes 1, 2. 337. 339. 340. notes 4, 5. 3. Assignments and Conveyances to Attorney. — See notes 1, 2. Such Assignments Not Necessarily Invalid. — See note I. 4. Gifts — The Presumption Against Fair Sealing. — See note I. 5. Purchasing Adversely to Client — a. At Judicial Sale. — See 333. 1. Relief in Equity. — Robinson v. Sharp, 201 111. 86, affirming 103 111. App. 239; Matter of Demarest, n N. Y. App. Div. 156; Gillespie v. Weiss, 8 1 Pa. Dist. 171, citing: 3 Am. and Eng- En-cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 333. Contract Valid to Amount Justly Due. — Porter v.. Bergen, 54 N. J. Eq. 405* 2,. Actual Fraud Unnecessary — Burden of Proof — Alabama. — Kidd v. Williams, 132 Ala. 140. Illinois. — Willin v. Burdette, 172 111. 117. Iowa. — Shropshire v. Ryan, in Iowa 677. Kentucky. — Beale v. Barnett, 64 S. W. Rep. 838, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 11 18. Minnesota. — Klein v. Borehert, 89 Minn. 377- Hew Jersey. — Porter v. Bergen, 54 N. J. Eq. 405- Oregon. — Ah Foe v. Bennett, 33 Oregon 234, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 333- Wisconsin. — Vanasse v. Reid, in Wis. 303; Young v. Murphy, 120 Wis. 49. Attorney's Assignee. — Goldberg v. Goldstein, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 516. 334. 1. Making Profits Out of Dealings with Client — Liability to Account. — Matter of Demarest, n N. Y. App. Div. 156; Beale u. Barnett, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 838; O'Don- nell v.. Breek, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 24. 3. Duty to Give Client Information. — Stan- wood v.. Wishard, 128 Fed. Rep. 499; Truitt v. Darnell, 65, N. J. Eq. 221 ; Dorr v. Camden, 55 W. Va. 226. Duty to Render Itemized Accounts. — • Kelley v. Repetto, 62 N. J. Eq. 246. 4, Prohibition of Attorney to Deal with Client Not Absolute — Transactions' Closely Scrutinized. — Myers v. Luzerne County, 124 Fed. Rep. 436 ; Kidd v. Williams, 132 Ala. 144, quoting. 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 334; Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. Sit ;. Tippett v. Brooks, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 107 ; Vanasse v. Reid, in Wis. 303; Bell v. Coch- rane, 5-. British Columbia 211. 335. £. Dealings at Arm's Length Valid. — Beale v. Barnett, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 838. 3. Acquisition of Adverse Interest, in Litigation. — Stubinger v. Frey, 116 Ga. 396; In re Freerks, n N. Dak. 134, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 335. 4. Rule Applies to One Fraudulently Repre- senting Himself to Be an Attorney. • — Miller v. Whelan, 158 111. 544. 336t 1. Contract Cheating Relation. — Doek- ery v. McLellan, 93 Wis. 381. Transaction After Relation Terminated — Burden of Proving, Fraud on Client.. — Jinks v. Moppin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 390. 2. Contract Creating Relation. — Dockery v. McLellan, 93 Wis. 381. 337. 1. Assignments by Client to Attorney. — Brook* v. Pratt, (C. C. A.) n8Fed. Rep. 725; Faris v. Briscoe, 78 111. App. 242. Assignment After Termination of Relation — Close Scrutiny. — Barrett v. Ball, 101 Mo. App. 288. Property Taken in Settlement of Fees and Loans — No Fraud Presumed. — Lindt u. Linder, 117 Iowa no. 2. Titles and Assignments Taken by Attorneys Subjected to Equitable Rights of Client. — Ah Foe v. Bennett, 35 Oregon 231; Liles v. Terry, (1895) 2 Q. B. 679. 339. 1. Good Faith and Full Knowledge Vali- date Transaction. — Tippett v. Brooks, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 107, writ of error denied 95 Tex. 335. 340. 1. Donatio Mortis Causa — Absence of Other Persons and Independent Advice — Gift In- valid. — Davis v. Walker, 5 Ont. L. Rep. 173. 4. Fisher v. Mclnerney, 137 Call. 28, 92 Am. St. Rep. 68.. See also supra, this title, 345. 3. 5. Attorney Purchasing at Judicial Sale Treated as Trustee for Client. — Holmes v. Holmes, 106 Ga. 860, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 340; Phillips v. Phillips, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 826, citing. 3 Am. and Eng.. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 340; Aultman v. Lor- ing, 76 Mo. App. 66 ; Olson v. Lamb, 56 Neb. 115, 71 Am. St. Rep. 670, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 340 ; Johnstone v. O'Connor, 162 N. Y. 639, affirming' 21 N'. Y. App. Div. 77 ; Carson v. Fogg, 34, Wash. 448I See Gaffney v. Jonfes, 18 Wash. 311. 437 341-345 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 341. 343. 343. Rule Extends to Tax Sales and Others of Similar Character. — See notes I, 2. When Purohase by Attorney Valid. — See note 2. Diligence Required of Client. — See note 3. b. In Other Cases. — See note 4. Attorney Purchasing Litigated Property as a Result of Special Information Obtained as Attorney. — See note I. Attorney T/sing Knowledge Acquired through Professional Relation, — See note 2. 344. Attorney Employed to Protect or Examine Title, Buying Outstanding Adverse Title. — See note 1. 345. VIII. General Authority of Attorneys — 1. How Determined. — See note 3. Purchase with Client's Consent. — Fisher v. Mclnerney, 137 Cal. 28, 92 Am. St. Rep. 68. 341. 1. Includes Tax Sales. — Brigham v. Newton, 49 La. Ann. 1539. But see Payette v. Willis, 23 Wash. 299. 2. Olson v. Lamb, 56 Neb. 104, 71 Am. St. Rep. 670. Purchase at Private Sale from Judgment Debtor. — Gaffney v. Jones, 18 Wash. 311. Outstanding Judgments. — Garinger v. Palmer, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 906. 342. 2. Rule Against Purchase by Attorney Not Inexorable. — Herr v. Payson, 157 111. 244; Clark v. Robertson, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 245; McKenna v. Van Blarcom, 109 Wis. 271, 83 Am. St. Rep. 895. Purchase Against Former Client. — Smith v. Craft, 58 S. W. Rep. 500, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 643. Purchase After Termination of Relation. — Grantz v. Deadwood Terra Min. Co., (S. Dak. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 277. 3. Client's Right Lost by Delay. — Johnstone v. O'Connor, 162 N. Y. 639, affirming 21 N. Y. App. Div. 77. 4. Acts of Attorney Held for Client's Benefit. — Gilbert v. Murphey, 103 Fed. Rep. 520; Matter of Demarest, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 156; Hare v. De Young, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 366 ; Albright u. Mercer, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 63. See McKenna v. Van Blarcom, 109 Wis. 271, 83 Am. St. Rep. 895. Lien of Client Lost by Attorney's Negligence. — When the negligence of the attorney causes client to lose his lien, the former is not es- topped to deny it upon subsequently purchasing the land. Farrand v. Land, etc., Imp. Co., (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 393. 343. 1. Purchase of Litigated Property Im- pressed with Trust. — Stanwood v. Wishard, 128 Fed. Rep. 499 ; Aultman v. Loring, 76 Mo. App. 66. Assumpsit by Client for Profits. — Albright v. Mercer, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 63. 2. Carson v. Fogg, 34 Wash. 448. 344. 1. Attorney Partly Interested — Client May Elect to Treat Purchase as Joint. — Thomas v. Morrison, 92 Tex. 329. Purchase at Execution Sale — Subsequent Pur- chase of Outstanding Title. — Aultman v. Lor- ing, 76 Mo. App. 66. 345. 3. General Rule as to Attorney's Au- thority. — In re Blankfein, 97 Fed. Rep. 192, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 345 ; Haselton v. Florentine Marble Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 701 ; Williams v. State, 65 Ark. 159; Houghton v. Ellis, (Colo. App. 1903) 73 Pac. Rep. 752; Spinks v. Athens Sav. Bank, 108 Ga. 376 ; Ratican v. Union Depot Co., 80 Mo. App. 528; Callaway v. Equitable Trust Co., 67 N. J. L. 44; Spaulding v. Allen, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 397, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 608; Garrett v. Han- shue, S3 Ohio St. 482 ; Gray v. Howell, 205 Pa. St. 211 ; Fox v. Deering, 7 S. Dak. 443; Hast v. Piedmont, etc., R. Co., 52 W. Va. 396 ; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Payne, 9 Wyo. 444, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 345; Foreman v. Seeley, 2 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 341. Illustrations — What Authority Is or Is Not Implied — Only Lawful Acts Authorized. — Hamel v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 135. Attorney as Agent Liable When Principal Un- disclosed. — Good v. Rumsey, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 280. Liability of Client to Attorney for Necessary Disbursements. — Hazeltine v. Mahan, 8 Kan. App. 857, 55 Pac. Rep. 467; Sibley v. Rice, 58 Neb. 785; Badger 0. Celler, 41 N. Y. Appi Div. 599 ; Tyrrel v. Hammerstein, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 505. Authority to Advance Costs — Client Liable. — Shuck v. Pfenninghausen, 101 Mo. App. 697. Client Not Liable for Printing Brief. — Living- ston Middleditch Co. v. New York College of Dentistry, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 831. Client Not Liable for Unauthorized Libelous Publication. — Hall v. Baker, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 131. Cannot Bind Client as to Collateral Matters. — Meriden Hydro-Carbon Arc Light Co. v. Ander- son, in 111. App. 449. Client Not Bound by Unauthorized Agreement. — Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Murray, 174 111. 259. May Sign Notice of Appeal and Perfect Appeal. — Taylor v. McCormick, 7 Idaho 524 ; Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Kemp, 27 Wash. in. Attorney May Sign Appeal Bond. — De Rob- erts v. Stiles, 24 Wash. 611. Attorney Cannot Make Contract Enforceable Against Corporation. — Nutting v. Kings County El. R. Co., 91 Hun (N. Y.) 251. Condemnation Suit — No Authority to Stipulate as to Plans or Methods of Construction, — Du Pont v. Sanitary Dist., 203 111. 170. General Authority to Represent — Signing Stay Bond Unauthorized. — Anderson v. Hendrick- son, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 844. Authority to Collect — No Authority to Regulate Distribution of Fund. — Lyon v. Hires, gi Md. 411. Employment of Expert by Attorney for Accident 433 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 346-350 340. An Attorney Employed to Collect a Debt. — See note 3. 347. Object of Employment Determines Scope of Powers. — See note 2. An Attorney Is Not a Mere Agent. — See note 3. 349. When Those Dealing with Attorney Chargeable with Notice of Limitations of Powers. — See notes 1, 2. 2. To Appear and Act as Counsel — Authority Depends on Eetainer. — See note 3. Presumption of Authority. — See notes 4, 5. Belief for Unauthorized Appearance — Authority Cannot Be Attacked Collaterally. — See note 6. 350. See note 1. Insurance Company to Examine Collapsed Building. — Brown v. Travelers L., etc., Ins. Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 42. Attorney as Agent. — An attorney is the same as any other agent, and is not liable as such personally, when he keeps within the limits of his authority, and discloses the name of his principal. Livingston Middleditch Co. v. New York College of Dentistry, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 259, 7 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 398. Attorney to Prepare mortgage may receive it after execution. Jones v. Howard, 99 Ga. 451- Contracts Relating to Future. — An attorney is not authorized, by virtue of his employment, to settle a suit against his client by entering into life contracts, or any contract affecting the future status between the claimant and the client. Nephew v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 128 Mich. 599, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 784. Criminal Contempt. — The implied authority of an attorney does not extend to permit him to bind the client to a liability for a criminal contempt without the actual privity of the client. Matter of Feehan, (Surrogate Ct.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 614. In Pennsylvania the retainer authorizes the attorney to do all acts affecting, not the cause of action, but the remedy only. Locher v. Rice, 8 Pa. Dist. 404. 346. 3. Attorney to Collect — No Authority to Keep Judgment Alive. — Cullison v. Lindsay, 108 Iowa 124. 347. 2. General Scope of Attorney's Powers. — Lyon v. Hires, 91 Md. 411; Kissick o. Hunter, 184 Pa. St. 174; Fowler v. Iowa Land Co., (S. Dak. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 1095. Notice of Appeal by Attorney Not of Record. — Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Kemp, 27 Wash. m. Necessary Expenses. — The relation of attorney and client, where the attorney has general au- thority over the subject of his employment, im- plies authority to incur such expenses in the professional undertaking as are usual and rea- sonably necessary, under all the circumstances, to carry out the object of the employment. Vilas v. Bundy, 106 Wis. 168. See also supra, this title, 345. 3. Employment to Prosecute — Agreement as to Payment at Judicial Sale. — An attorney by vir- tue of his employment to prosecute a case has no authority to bind his client by an agreement that the purchaser at the judicial sale shall pay the amount of his bid to a third person in- stead of to the officer making the sale. Fire Assoc, v. Ruby, 58 Neb. 730. 3. Employment of Expert Witness — Client Lia- ble. — Mulligan v. Cannon, (Supm. Ct.) 25 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 348. Services of Stenographers. — Palmer v. Miller, 19 Ind. App. 624; Miller v. Palmer, 25 Ind. App. 357, 81 Am. St. Rep. 107; Osmond v. Mutual Cycle, etc., Supply Co., (1899) 2 Q. B. 488. Printing Expenses on Appeal. — Tyrrel v. Hammerstein, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 505. 349. 1. Cram v. Sickel, 31 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478. 2. Secret Limitations on Attorney's Powers. — W. W. Kimball Co. v. Payne, 9 Wyo. 441. 3. Power to Appear Depends on Retainer. — Bell v. Farwell, 89 111. App. 638; State v. Union Nat. Bank, 145 Ind. 537, 57 Am. St. Rep. 209. No Authority Prior to Retainer. — Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 174 U. S. 412. Unauthorized Appearance Confers No Jurisdic- tion. — Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo. App. 220. Unauthorized Appearance for Nonresident In- valid in Rem. — Myers v. Prefontaine, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 603. Addition of Party as Plaintiff — Consent in Writ- ing. — Fricker v. Van Grutten, (1896) 2 Ch. 649. Authority to Appear Specially. — Where an at- torney is directed by his client to enter only a special appearance for him in an action, yet in so doing the attorney honestly pleads matters which would operate as a general appearance, the client is bound by such general appearance. McNeal v. Gossard, 68 Kan. 113. 4. Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 43; Gage 0. Bell, 124 Fed. Rep. 380, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 349; Bell v. Farwell, 189 111. 414. See also supra, this title, 375. 4. 5. Danville, etc., R. Co. v. Rhodes, 180 Pa. St. 157. 6. Relief from Judgment Obtained upon Unau- thorized Appearance. — Longman v. Bradford, 108 Ga. 572; Mortgage Trust Co. -o. Cowles, 3 Kan. App. 660 ; National Exch. Bank v. Wiley, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 582. Motion to Dismiss. — Bell v. Farwell, 189 111. 414- Dismissal by Court Sua Sponte. — Bell v. Far- well, 89 111. App. 638. Unauthorized Institution of Suit — Dismissal at Costs of Attorney. — Falor v. Beery, 8 Ohio Dec. 306. 350. 1. Authority Cannot Be Attacked Collat- erally or on Appeal, — Donohue v. Hungerford, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 528. 439 330-354 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. HI. 350. Conditions of Belief — Promptness — Case Clear on Merits. — See note 2.. 351. Eetainer in Suit No Authority to Appear in Other Litigation. — See note %■ Appearance Equivalent to Service of Process. — See note 4. 353. 3. To Employ Associate Counsel or Assistants — Delegation of Authority. — See note 1. Season of Rule against Delegation. — See note 2. Employment of Assistant Counsel — Ratification. — See notes 3, 4. 353. Attorney to Collect — Effect of Payment to Substitute. — See note 2. 354. 4. To Make Stipulations or Agreements. — See notes i, 2. Stipulation that One Trial Shall Determine Cases Involving Same Issues. — See note 3. 350. 2. Immediate Action on Discovering Lack 0/ Authority SflfiMeirt, — Bell y, FarweU, 189 111. 41.4. 351. 3. Writ of Error. — Delaney v. Hus- band, 64 N. J. L. 275. 4. Flint y. Comjy, 95 Me. 251 ; Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 9,0, Md- 434; Rothschild v. Knight, 176 M aS! v. 4$- Authorized to Appear Specially — General Ap- pearance Binding. — Kramer v. Qerlach, (S,uprri. Ct. Ado, T.) 28; Misc. (N, Y) 525. 352. 1. Delegation of Authority by Attorney. — N,orthe^n Pac. R. Co. v. Clarke, 106 Fed. Rep. 794, 45 C. C. A. 635 ; Hewes v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 31 Pa. Co. Ct- 75, quoting 3 Am. and E.N.G. En,cyc. Q? Law (2d ed.) 352 ; Hearn v. McNeil, 3 2 Nova Scotia 210. 2. Hewes v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 75, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 352- 3. Assistant Counsel. — Miller v. Ballermo, 135 Cal. 566, 571; Lathrop v. Hallett, (Colo. App. 1904) 77 Pac Rep. 109s; White v. Eschj 78 Mini>. 264 ; Kingsbury v. Joseph, 94 Mo. App, 298; Meany v. Rosenberg, (Supm. Q. APR- T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 520; Matter of Bork- strom, 63 N. Y. App. Diy. 7. Local Counsel — Fees Chargeable as Expenses. — Dillon v. Watson, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 156. Knowledge of Client. — McCarthy v. Crump, 17 Colo. App. no. Assistant's, Services Included. — An attorney, at his own expense and risk, may employ an assistant and charge his client with the rea- sonable value of the entire services, and this does not militate against the rule that he can- not employ another attorney at his client's ex- pense. Vilas v. Bun,dy, 106 Wis. 168. 4. When Client Bound for Fees of Assistant Counsel. — Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Clarke, (C. C. A.) iofij Fed. Rep. 794. When No Ratification. — Swayne v. Union Mut- L. Ins. Co., 92 Tex. 575. Knowledge Alone of Employment No Ratifica- tion. — Lathrop v. Hallett, (Colo. App. 1904) 77 Pac. Rep. 1095. Agreement of Attorney to Pay All Expenses — Knowledge of Employment of Assistant Not Bind- ing. — Porter v. Elizalde, 125 Cal. 204. Conflicting Evidence of Agreement — Question for Jury. — Cullison v. Lindsay, 108 Iowa 1,24. 353. 2. Cannot Authorize Clerk of Court to Accept Payment of Claim. — Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609- 354. L Stipulations in Progress of the Cause. — Wadsworth v. Montgomery First Nat. Bank, 124 Ala. 440; Matter of Ross, 136 Cal. 629; Grand Lodge etc., v. Ohnstein, no, JU-. App. 312 ; American, Emigrant Co,- y. Long, 10.5 Iowa 194; People v. Westchester Couiyty, (Supm. Ct. G-en. T.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 580 ; Fox v. peering, 7 S. Dak. 443 ; Fowler y. I,owa La,nd Co.j (S, Dak. 1904) 99 N- W- R e P- \°9S- " \t would be a narrow limit within which to place the authority of counsel in the prosecu- tion of causes of this kind to, say tfeat there must be special authority given to h,im by his client for every action that he takes by which be might release the matter of costs or dam- ages' in order to, protect his client's more sub- stantial interests." Willis v. Chowning, 90 Tex. 617, 59 Am. St. Rep. 842. Agreement for Amicable Action. — Kissick v. Hunter, 184 Pa. St. 174. Agreement to Amendment. — Rothschild v. Knight, 176 Mass. 48. Agreement Giving Judge Additional Time for Decision, — Litt v. Stewart, (Supm,. Ct. Spec.. T.) 62 N. Y. Supp. 1 1 14. Agreement Collateral to and Independent of Suit not binding. Wonderly v. Martin, 69 Mo. App, 84. Limits of Authority. — The attorney's author- ity to bind his client extends only to acts an,d agreernents necessary to the control arid prupe- Cution of tbe suit or defense and affecting the remedy only. Ratican v. Union Depot Co>, 80 Mo. App. 528, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 760. A Local Attorney for the taking of testimony of distant witnesses is not authorized; to make an agreement affecting the management of the case. Earhart v. U. S., 30 Ct- CI. 343. South, Dakota Statute. — Gibson v. Allen, (S. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1096. Iowa Statute — Evidence Thereunder. — Baity v. Birkhofer, 123 Iowa 59. 2. Agreement for Special Judge. — State v. Downs, 164 Mo. 471. 3. Several Actions Involving Same Issues — Stipulation for One Trial. — Brown y. Arnold, (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 723. See Grand Lodge, etc., v. Ohnstein, no ^11. App. $\2. Decision in Another Case Binding. — The power of an attorney to bind his,cli,ent by consenting that a decision in another case shaH be bind- ing upon him in the case in question can only exi,st where the two cases, involve the same questions, Louisville Trust Co. v. Stone, 88 Fed. Rep. 407, affirmed 174 U. S. 429. An Agreement that the Decision of the Supreme Court in a Pending Case shall be conclusive on the question of negligence in bpth cases is bias- ing. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Pavey* $7 Kan. 521. 44,0 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT 355-360 355. 357. 358. note i. 359. 360. Instances of Stipulations within the Power of an Attorney. — See notes 2, J, 6 Stipulation Waiving Eight of Appeal. — See note I. A Stipulation as to the Law of the Case. — See note 2. Effect of Stipulations — How Far Conclusive. — See note 3. 5. To Exclusive Control of Proceedings. — S\ee note 7. 6. To Compromise Client's Rights —a. The General Rule. — See See note I. An Executory Agreement to Compromise or Settle. See note 2. 355. 2. Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. Rep. 924. 5. Stipulations as to Evidence, — American Emigrant Co. v. Long, 105 Iowa 194; Garrett v. Hanshue, 53 Ohio St. 482 ; Thompson v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 583, Time of Taking Evidence — Use in Case of Death of Witness. ■ — Lud,eman v. Third Ave. R. Co., 72 N. Y. App. Div. 26. 9. Agreement for Compensation for Opposing Counsel. — People v. Westchester County, (Supm, Ct. Gen. T.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 580. 357. 1. Agreement Not to Appeal. — Locher v. Rice, 8 Pa. Dist. 404, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 92. 2, Estoppel. — A client cannot be divested, of four thousand dollars' worth oi real estate by the verbal admission and conclusion of law of an attorney that a plea of estoppel by the other party was well founded, without any evidence in the record back of the admission. Harvin v. Blackinan. 108 La. 426. 3. Admissions Binding. — Pratt v. Conway, 148 Mo. 291, 71 Am. St. Rep. 602. Admissions by Attorney Need Not Be Proven. — Preston v. Davis, 112 111. App. 636. Acting Contrary to Client's Wishes. — An agreement is not binding when the court and the adverse party both know the attorney is acting in direct opposition to his client's in- structions or wishes. Knowlton v. Mackenzie, no Cal. 183. 7. Attorney's Right to Control Proceedings. — ■ Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. Rep. 924; Earhart v. U. S., 30 Ct. CI. 343 ; Cresent Canal Co. v. Montgomery, 124 Cal. 134; Toy v. Haskell, 128 CaL S5& 79 Am. St. Rep. 70 ; O'Rourke v. Rourke, 5 Quebec Pr. 405. But see Sheridan Counity y. Hanna, 9 Wyo. 3,68. Withdrawal of Answer by Client. — Reeder v. Lockwood, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.), 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 531. Extension of Time for Answer by Client Invalid. — Wylie v. Sierra Gold Co., 120 Cal. 485. Tender May Be Made to Attorney. — Ferrea v. Tubbs, 125. Cal. 687. Principal Attorney Controls Assistant. — Sheri- dan County v. Hanna, 9 Wyo. 3.68. May Decide in What Court Suit Shall Be Insti- tuted. — McGeorge v. Bigstone Gap Imp. Co., 88 Feck. Rep. 599- Attorney'? lien — Withdrawal of Writ of Error. ^.A plaintiff in error cannot withdraw a writ of error over counsel's objection, where the latter would have a lien on property for fees if successful. Walker v. Equitable Mjortg. Co™ 114; Ga. 862. 358. 1. Attorney Cannot Compromise — Umiied, States. — r. Humphrey v. Thorp, 89 Fed. R». ( 66. Georgia. — Sonnebom v. Moore, 105 Ga. 497. Illinois. — McClintock v. Helberg, 168 111. 392, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 358; Danzige* v. Pittsiveld Sho,e Co., 107 111. App. 47,. affirmed 204 111. 145. See Strong v. Smith, 98 111. App. 522. Iowa. — Kilmer v. Gallaher, 112 Iowa 583^ 84 Am. St, Rep. 358. Kentucky. — Cox v. Adelsdoxf,, (Ky. 189^), 51 S. W. Rep. 616 ; Brown v. Bunger, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 714; Ben,cdiet v. Wilhoite, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1155'. Missouri. — Schlemmer 11, Schleswner, 107 Mo. App. 487 ; Bay v. Trusdell, 92 Mo. App. i77- Montana. — Harris v . Root, 28 Mont. 168, citing 3 Am. and Enq. Encyc. of La.w (sd eijt 35-8. New Jersey. — Faughnan v. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309. New York. — Smith v. Bradhurst, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.), 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 546, affirmed, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 98 ; McKecbnie v. Mc- Kechnie,, 3 N. Y. App, Div. 9.1. Ohio. — Holdern v. Lippert, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 527- Pennsylvania. — Gray v. Howell, 205, Pa. St. 21,1 ; Callahan v. Quigley, 6 Pa.. Dist. 494. Tennessee. — Conley v*. Wbitthorne, (Tenn, Ch, 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 380. Texas. -=- Cook v.. Greenberg, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 687. Washington. — Budlong v- Budiong, 31 Wash. 228.; Timra v. Timm, 34 Wash, 228. Wisconsin- — Fosha v. O'Donnell, 120 Wis. 336- Canada. — Benner v. Edmonds, 19. Ont. Pr. 9. Contra. — Strattner v. Wilmington City Elec- tric Co., 3 Penn. (Del.) 453. Client May Authorize Compromise. — Diamond Soda Water Mfg. Co. v. Hegeman, 74 N, Y. App. Div. 430 ; High v> Emerson, 23 Wash. 103. Agreement Not to Settle Suit Without Attorney's. Consent Invalid. — Davis v. Webber; 66 Ark. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81. Corporation Counsel of New York May Compro- mise. — Bush v. Coler, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 368.. Unauthorized Agreement Not to Enforce Judg- ment Invalid. — Richaudsoo Dsug Co. v. Duna- gan, 8 Colo. App. 308. Power Coupled: with Interest — Not Revocable at Wild. —- Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Miller,, 41. Tex. Civ. App. 609. An Attorney of a Trustee cannot contract to waive, the rights of an, estate which his clients only hold as trustee. Spaulding v-. Allen, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 397, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 608. 359. 1. Client May Collect Balance Due. — Holden v. Lippert, 4 Ohio Cir. Dec. 527. 360, 2. E«fiutorsAgre.emenit»lK>>Co^proj5kft 441 360 368 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 360. 362. 363. note i. 364. notes 2, ■ 365. to Heceive 366 368 Betraxit — Discontinuance — Remittitur. — See note 5- The Courts Are Beluctant to Set Aside a Compromise. — See note 8. The English Doctrine. — See note I. Batification of Unauthorized Compromise. — See note 2. b. Cannot Accept Payment in Anything but Money. — See Cannot Accept Notes in Absolute Payment. — c. Cannot Accept Less than - See note 2. Full Amount DUE. — See 7. To Receive Payment and Enter Satisfaction of Judgment Payment. — See note 2. Presumption Arises from Possession of Claim. — See note I. Satisfaction of Judgment. — See notes I, 2. Authority — McCIintock v. Helberg, 168 111. 392, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 360. 360. 5. Betraxit. — Forest Coal Co. v. Doo- little, 54 W. Va. 210. 8. Batification of Unauthorized Compromise. — Van Campen v. Bruns, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 86. Specific Performance of Agreement. — The ob- jection that an attorney was not authorized to make the compromise cannot be made for the first time in the Supreme Court. Collins v. Fidelity Trust Co., 33 Wash. 136. 362. 1. Compromise Before Action Invalid. — Macaulay v. Polley, (1897) 2 Q. B. 122. 2. Batification of Unauthorized Compromise. — Danziger v. Pittsfield Shoe Co., 204 111. 145; Timm v. Timm, 34 Wash. 228 ; Fosha v. O'Don- nell, 120 Wis. 336. Eight Years' Delay to Object. — Bay v. Trus- dell, 92 Mo. App. 377. 363. 1. Payment Must Be in Money. — Mc- Murray v. Marsh, 12 Colo. App. 95; Kaiser v. Hancock, 106 Ga. 217; McCIintock v. Helberg, 168 111. 392, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Engyc. of Law (2d ed.) 363 ; Smith v. Jones, 47 Neb. 108; Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478; Barr v. Rader, 31 Oregon 231, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyx. of Law (2d ed.) 363; Gray v. Howell, 205 Pa. St. an; Pioneer Press Co. v. Gossage, 13 S. Dak. 626, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 363. Check of Opposing Solicitor. — Blumberg v. Life Interests, etc., Corp., (1897) 1 Ch. 171, 66 L. J. Ch. 127, 75 L. T. N. S. 627, 45 W. R. 246. 2. Notes Accepted in Payment. — Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 828, 66 Am. St. Rep. 478; Fin- lay v. Heyward, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 35 Misc. (N..Y.) 266. 364. 2. Accepting Part Payment in Discharge. — Wood v. Bangs, 2 Penn. (Del.) 435 ; Kaiser v. Hancock, 106 Ga. 217 ; Cox v. Adelsdorf, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 616; Bay v. Trus- dell, 92 Mo. App. 377 ; Smith v. Jones, 47 Neb. 108, 53 Am. St. Rep. 519. See Kilmer v. Galla- her, 112 Iowa 583, 84 Am. St. Rep. 358. 3. Satisfaction of Judgment Without Full Pay- ment. — Faughman v. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309; Tito v. Seabury, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 283 ; Wood v. New York, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 299. Assignment of Judgment. — Smiley v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 853. Cannot Object to Compromise by Client. — Homans v. Tyng, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 383. 365. 2. Implied Power to Beceive Payment of Claim to Be Collected. — Williams v. State, 65 Ark. 159; Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609; Selz v. Guthman, 62 111. App. 624 ; Rhinehart v. New Madrid Banking Co., 99 Mo. App. 381 ; Beliveau v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 68 N. H. 225, 73 Am. St. Rep. 577 ; Conner v. Watson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 29 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 153, 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 444; Boyd v. Daily, 85 N. Y. App. Div. 581, affirmed 176 N. Y. 556; Tito v. Seabury, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 283. See Central Trust Co. «/. Folsom, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 40. The Mere Belation of Solicitor and Client does not authorize the former to receive payment of either interest or principal due the client on a mortgage. The question is one of agency, and to discharge the paying mortgage from further liability there must be express or implied au- thority. Foreman v. Seeley, 2 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 341. Authority to Beceive Interest given an attor- ney confers no authority to receive the princi- pal. Foreman v. Seeley, 2 N. Rruns. Eq. Rep. 34i. May Beceive Tender of Damages for trespass under the Vermont statute, § 1692 (R. L., § 1450). Brown v. Mead, 68 Vt. 215. Indorsement of Draft. — An attorney who has authority to collect a claim from a corporation, and who, in the adjustment thereof, receives a draft from the adjusting agent of the corpora- tion, drawn on the paying agent for the amount of the claim, has implied authority to bind his client by indorsing the draft in order to receive the amount thereof. National F. Ins. Co. v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 63 Neb. 698. 366. 1. Contra. — In Canada the mere pos- session of securities by an attorney is no evi- dence of an authority to collect or receive money due on them. Foreman v. Seeley, 2 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 341. Possession of Note and Mortgage Is Not Essential to authorize an agent and attorney to make col- lection. Orient Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 61 Neb. 173. 368. 1. To Acknowledge Satisfaction of Judg- ment. — McMurray v. Marsh, 12 Colo. App. 95; Tito v. Seabury, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 283. 2. Unauthorized Satisfaction. — Faughnan v. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309 ; Wood v. New York, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 299 ; Conley v. Whitthorne, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 380, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 368. See Patterson v. McGovern, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 310. 442 Vol. III. A TTORNE Y AND CLIENT. 368 374 4> 5- 368. 8. To Confess Judgment. — See note 3. 369. 9. To Transfer Notes, Judgments, or Securities Notes. — See notes Judgments. — See note 6. 370. Where, However, the Assignment Is for the Full Value. — See note 2. ip. To Submit Case to Arbitration. — See note 3. 11. To Dismiss a Suit. — See note 4. 371. Authority Does Not Extend to Compromising Client's Bights. — See note I. 13. To Issue Execution and Direct Levy. — See note 3. Directing Levy on Particular Property. — See note 6. 372. 14. To Release Lien of Attachment, Execution, or Other Security ■ Implied Power to Selease Lien of Judgment. — See note 3. 373. See note 1. 374. Releasing Attachments. — See note 2. 15. Ratification of Unauthorized Acts. — See note 5. No Vacation of Unauthorized Satisfaction — Terms. — An unauthorized satisfaction of a judgment by an attorney for less than its amount will be vacated only on terms that the plaintiff release and discharge the defendant to the extent of the payment made to the attorney. Faughnah v. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309. 368. 3. Attorney's Power to Confess Judg- ment. — Meriden Hydro-Carbon Arc Light Co. ■v. Anderson, in 111. App. 449 ; Hairston v. Gar- wood, 123 N. Car. 345 ; Kissick v. Hunter, 184 Pa. St. 174. Before Justice of the Peace. — Chalmers v. Tandy, in 111. App. 252. 369. 4. Transfer of Notes by Attorney. — Feiner u. Puetz, 77 Mo. App. 405 ; Gordon v. Sanborn, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 291 ; Hazeltine v. Keenan, 54 W. Va. 603, 102 Am. St. Rep. 953, citing 3 Am. and Ekg. Encyc. or Law (2d ed.) 369. No Authority to Bind Client by Indorsing Ne- gotiable Paper. — National F. Ins. Co. v. East- ern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 63 Neb. .698. Sale of Notes. — Hazeltine v. Keenan, 54 W. Va. 603, 102 Am. St. Rep. 953, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 369. 6. Check Indorsed" for Collection. — National Bank of Republic v. Old Town Bank, (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. Rep. 726. 6. To Assign a Judgment. — Mayer v. Sparks, 3 Kan. App. 602 ; Wyatt v. Fromme, 70 Mo. App. 613 ; Henry, etc., Co. v. Halter, 58 Neb. 685. 370. 2. Cannot Assign Except on Payment of Full Amount. — Smiley v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 853. 3. To Submit Case to Arbitration. — Stines- ville, etc., Stone Co. v. White, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 13s, reversing (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 314; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. Car. 479. Contra. — Lew v. Nolan, 8 Pa. Dist. 531, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 21 (where the question was of title- to property) ; King v. King, 104 La. 420 (Louisiana statute). No Authority Against Client's Wishes. — Neale v. Gordon-Lennox, (1902) A. C. 465, 71 L. J. K. B. 939- 4. Attorney's Dismissal or Discontinuance of Suit. — Compare Jubilee Placer Co. v. Hossfeld, 20 Mont. 234. Contra. — Rhutasel v. Rule, 97 Iowa 20 ; Bjrown v. Mead, 68 Vt. 215. No Authority to Dismiss When Client Objects. — Steinkamp v. Gaebel, (Neb: 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 684. Unauthorized Discontinuance Invalid. — Brown v. Mead, 68 Vt. 215. 371. 1. Forest Coal Co. v. Doolittle, 54 W. Va. 225, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 370. 3. May Cause Execution to Issue. — Parker v. Home Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 114 Ga. 702. Attorney Not Enrolled in District. — In Penn- sylvania an attorney who is not a member of the bar of a county, has no authority to cause scire facias to be issued upon his praecipe, or to prosecute the same to judgment as an attor- ney of the court therein. Bronson v. Brown, S Pa. Dist. 365. 6. Parker v. Home Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 114 Ga. 702. See Guilfoyle v. Seeman, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 516. 372. 3. To Release Lien of Execution or Judg- ment. — Ludden v. Sumter, 45 S. Car. 186, 55 Am. St. Rep. 761 ; Engelbach v. Simpson, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 188. See Rogers v. Rogers, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 35 S. W. Rep. 890. 373. 1. To Release Securities. — Lowry v. Clark, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 357. 374. 2. Release of Property. — Muir v. Orear, 87 Mo. App. 38. 5. Ratification — England. — Marsh v. Joseph, (1897) 1 Ch. 213. United States. — Hughes County v. Ward, 81 Fed. Rep. 314. Alabama. — ■ Florence Cotton, etc., Co. v. Louisville Banking Co., 138 Ala. 588, 100 Am. St. Rep. 50. Colorado. — Roberts v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 8 Colo. App. 504. Delaware. — Wood v. Bangs, 2 Penn. (Del.) 435- District of Columbia. — Hazleton v. LeDuc, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 379- Georgia. — Ewing v. Freeman, 103 Ga. 811. Illinois. — Hickox v. Fels, 86 111. App. 216. Kentucky. — Fisher v. Musick, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 787- Nebraska. — Olson v. Lamb, 56 Neb. 104, 71 Am. St. Rep. 670. See Saxton v. Harrington, 52 Neb. 300. New York. — Van Campen v. Bruns, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 86 ; Johnstone v. O'Connor, 21 N. 443 874-377 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. nt 374. Express or Implied Ratification — See note 6. 375. See note i. Acquiescence with Knowledge. — See notes 2,. 3. 16. Presumption of Attorney's Authority. — See note 4. 377. Caanot Be Compelled to Produce Authority in First Instance. — See note I. Y. App. Div. 77 ; Steinson v. Board of Educa- tion, 76 N. Y. App., Div. 612. North Carolina. — Christian v. Yarborough, 124 N. Car. 76, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 374. Washington. — Lambert v. Gillette, 24 Wash. 726. Finding of Lower Court Conclusive on Appeal. — Hays v. Merkle, 70 Mo. App. 509. 374. 6. Express or Implied Ratification. — King v. Smith, (1900) 2 Ch. 425; Wood . Y.) 266. Silence Hot Conclusive of Ratification. — Ham- mond v. Evans, 23 Ind. App. 501. Acceptance and Retention of Proceeds of Judg- ment. — Julier v. Julier, 62 Ohio St. 90,, 78 Am. St. Rep. 597. Cancellation of Mortgage — Retention of Con- sideration. — Christian v. Yarborough, 124 N. Car. 72. Signing Appeal Bond After Dismissal of Snit. — The fact that after an order of dismissal was entered by the Superior Court, because of the attorney's want of authority to bring the suit, the plaintiff signed an appeal bond, does not amount to a ratification of authority to bring the suit. Bell v. Farwell, 189 111. 414. 8. Failure to Object Within Reasonable Time. — Selz v. Guthman, 62 111. App. 624 ; Lockner v. Holland, (County Ct.) 81 N. Y. Supp. 730. 3. Knowledge of Material Facts Essential. — Marsh v. Joseph, (1897) 1 Ch, 213; Hammond v. Evans, 23 Ind. App. 501 ; Wonderly v. Mar- tin, 69 Mo. App. 84; Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 8a& 66 Am. St. Rep. 478 ; Olson v. Lamb, 56 Neb. 104, 71 Am. St. Rep. 670 ; Bassford v. Swift, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N.Y.) 149. 4. Presumption in Favor of Attorney's Authority — United States, — In re Blankfein, 97 Fed. Rep. 192, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 375 ; Gage v. Bell, 124 Fed. Rep. 3$o, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ad ed.) 375 ; Brown v. Arnold, (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 723, reversing 127 Fed. Rep. 387 ; /» re Gasser, 104 Fed. Rep. 537, 44 C. C. A. 30; Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. Rep. 924. Arizona, — ■ Clajk, v. Morrison, (Ariz. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep. 985, California. — Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal. 8, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 375 ; Woodbury v. Nevada South- ern R. Co., 120 Cal. 367; San Francjbseo. Sav. Union v. Long, 123 Cal. 107; Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank v. Brander, 124 Cal. 255. Georgia. — Planters' Mut. F. Assoc, v. De- Loach, 113 Ga. 802; Bigham v. Kistler, 114 Ga. 453. Illinois. — Famous Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox, 180 111. 246. Iowa. — Uehlein v. Bttrk, 119 Iow,a 742- Kentucky^ — Bourbon Stock- Yaatds Co. v. Louisville, 63 S. W. Rep. 285^ 23 Ky. L. Rep.. 420* Louisiana. — New Orleans v. Steiahajrdt, 52 La. Anu. 1043. Maine. — Flint u. Comly, 95 Me. 251. Maryland. — Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md.. 434. Michigan- — Hirsh v. Fisher, (Mich. 1904) ioi N. W. Rep. 48. Minnesota. — Alden v. Dyer, 92 Minn. 134. Missouri. — Patterson u. Yancey, 9,7 14o. App. 681 ; Davis v. Cohn, 916 Mo. App. 587. See State v. Crumb, 157 Mo. 545« Nebraska. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fox, 56 Neb. 746. New York. — Bennett v. Weed, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 290; Austen v. Columbia Lubricants Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 362. North Carolina. — Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. Car. 479. Pennsylvania. — Danville, etc., R. Co. v. Rhodes, 180 Pa. St. 157; Kissick v. Hunter, 184 Pa. St. 174. Rhode Island. — Wilson v. Wilson, 25 R. I. 446. South Carolina. — Sanders v.' Price, 56 S.. Car. 1 . Washington. — Seattle v. McDonald, 26 Wash. 106, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 375. To Appeal. — Friar v. Curry, 119 Ga. 908. Authority to Appeal Not Questioned: in tower Court. — Hallam v. Tillinghast, 19, Wash. 20^ Collateral Attack Illegal. — Donokue v. Hun- gerford, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 528. No Judicial Notice Taken by Supreme Court oi Officers of Lower Court. — Clark v. Morrison, (Ariz. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep. 985. Answer Eiled by Attorney., — Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 83 Fed. Rep 4 803, 48 U. S. App. 575. Termination of Relation. — The authority of an attorney of record to represent one whom, he avers is his client will not be decreed tai be at an end on the averment of another at- torney, not of record, unsupported b>y an oath or its equivalent. Gigand v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 1259. 377. 1. Want of Authority Must Be Shown 444 Vol. lit. A TTORNE Y AND CLIENT. 3*7-380 377. Presumption Not Conclusive — Laches. — See notes 2, 3. Statutory Requirement of Written Authority. — See note 4. 378. Court May Demand Proof of Authority. — See note 3. 379. IX. Liability or Attorney to Client — 1. For Negligence Gener- ally — n. UNDERTAKING. OF ATTORNEY — Reasonable Skill and Diligence Required. — See note i. 380. An Attorney, However, Is Not Liable for Every Mistake. — See note I. Prima Facie Before Proof Thereof Demanded. — Gage v. Bell, 124 Fed. Rep. 371, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 377 ; State v. Beardsley, 108 Iowa 396; Austen v. Colum- bia Lubricants Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 362. " It is not the law, and never has been, that an attorney at law is required, every time he appears in a court to prosecute or defend a cause, to show a warrant of attorney or trther special authority to appear." Davis v. Cohn, 96 Mo. App. 587. Bule upon Attorney Supported by Affidavit. — Gage v. Bell, 124 Fed. Rep. 380, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 377. 377. 2. Presumption Not Conclusive. — Daughdrill v. Daughdrill, 108 Ala. 321 ; Big- ham v. Kistler, 114 Ga. 453; Patterson v. Yan- cey, 97 Mo. App. 681. Valid until Disproved. — Brown v. Arnold, (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 723, reversing 127 Fed. Rep. 387- TJnauthorized Appearance — Client Dead. — Maury v. Fitzwater, 88 Fed. Rep. 768. j The Presumption Is Conclusive in the absence of countervailing evidence or statutory pro- hibition. In re Gasser, (C. C. A.) 104 Fed. Rep. 537- 3. Laches. — Kissick v. Hunter, 184 Pa. St. 174. 4. The Bankrupt Act requires no written au- thority for an attorney representing a cred- itor. In re Gasser, (C. C. A.) 1 04 Fed. Rep. 537- New York Code. S 2890 — Justice's Court — Re- cital in Complaint Verified. — ■ Barnes v. Sutliff, (County Ct.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 526. 378. 3. Court May Demand Proof of Authority. — §an Francisco Sav. Union v. Long, 123 Cal. 10?; Lester v. Mcintosh, 101 Ga. 675. Statute in iowa — Stay of Proceedings. — State v. Beardsley, 108 Iowa 396. Oath 6f Attorney — Alabama Statute. — Sec- tion 868 of the Code of 1886 provides that, when required by the court to produce his authority " the oath of the attorney is pre- sumptive evidence of his authority." Daugh- drill v. Daughdrill, 108 Ala. 321. 379. 1, Attorney Bound to Use Beasonable Care and Skill — California. — Matter of Kru- ger, 130 Cal. 621. See Siddall v. Haight, 132 Cal. 320. Colorado. — Rosebud Min., etc., Co. v. Hughes, 16 Colo. App. 162. Illinois. — Newmah v. Schueck, 58 111. App. 328; Morrison v. Burnett, 56 HI. App. 129. Kentucky. — Humboldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, lit Ky. 7gg. Maryland. — Watson v. Calvert Bldg., etc., Assoc, 91 Md. 23. New York. — Gardner v. Wood, (Siipm. Ct. Spfec. T.) 37 Misc. (N, Y.) 93- Oregon. — Currey v. Butcher, 37 Oregon 380. Pennsylvania. — Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662. See Harkness v. Caven, 199 Pa. St. 267. Rhode Island. — Forrow v. Arnold, 22 R. I. 306, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) [379] 398. South Dakota. — Cranmer v. Brothers, 15 S. Dak. 234. Tennessee. — Gaar v. Hughes, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 35 S. W. Rep. 1092; Hill v. Mynatt, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 163. Texas. — Lynch v. Munson, ( Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 140, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 379 ; Patterson v. Frazer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1077. Wisconsin. — Malone v. Gerth, 100 Wis. 166. See Eberhardt v. Harkless, 115 Fed. Rep. 816; Reumping v. Wharton, 56 Neb. 536; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Payne, 9 Wyo. 441. Liability Same as Agent's. — Asher v. Beckner, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 35. Client Estopped to Plead Negligence by Acquies- cence. — Carr v. Glover, 70 Mo. App. 242. Employed by Manager of Firm — No Negligence in Failing to Notify Other Members of Progress of Suit. — Tomlinson v. Broadsmith, (1896) [ Q. B. 386. Measure Of Damages in Injury Sustained. — Goldzier v. Poole, 82 111. App. 469. Nominal Damages only will be allowed for negligence of an attorney, unless it appears that the client's demand was valid, and that one against whom the demand was made Was solvent. Goldzier v. Poole, 82 111. App. 469. Not Insurer. — An attorney is not required to insure a client as to the ultimate result of the proceedings which he had advised. Harri- man v. Baird, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 518, affirmed 158 N. Y. 691. Admissibility of Evidence. — Where the alleged negligence was failure to appeal, evidence of the amount involved, and costs paid, is not admissible to estimate damages. Comelisseh v. Ort, 132 Mich. 294, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 604. 380. 1. Attorney Not Liable Where Reason- able Skill and Diligence Employed. — Morrison v. Burnett, 56 111. App. 129; Humboldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, tri Ky. 759; Patterson v. Powell, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 250; Malone v. Gerth, 100 Wis. 166. Client Advised According to Established Decis- ions — No Negligence When Decisions Subse- quently Overruled. — Taylor v. Robertson, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 615- Expression of Opinion as to Probable Sum Prop- erty Will Bring — Not Liable for Mistaken Esti- mate. — Reumping v. Wharton, 56 Neb. 536, An Attorney Is Not Required to Insure a client as to the ultimate result of the proceedings which he had advised, nor is the client juSti- 445 , 380-303 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 380. 381. note i. 383. Liability for Error on Question of Law. — See notes 2, 3. b. DUTY OF ATTORNEY — Duty to Prosecute — Abandoning Case. — See See note 1. Duty to Prepare Pleadings and Take Necessary Steps in Case. — See note 2. d. Presumptions— Proof of Negligence. — See note 6. Proximate Cause. — See note 5. 2. Giving Improper Advice — b. Advising as to Titles Securities. — See note 2. An Attorney Undertaking to Invest Money for His Client. — See note 4. 3. In Preparing and Recording Contracts or Conveyances. — See 384. 385. 386. or 387. note 3. 388. 302. 303. note i Duty as to Recording Deeds. — See note 2. 4. In Making Collections. — See note 4. What Must Be Proved Against Attorney. — See note I. Attorney's Duty in Paying Over Money Collected. — See note 4. 5. For Money Collected and Not Paid Over — a. In General. — See fied in refusing to compensate him because in the subsequent development of affairs it ap- pears that a course other than that adopted would have resulted more advantageously for the client. Harriman v. Baird, 158 N. Y. 691, affirming 6 N. Y. App. Div. 518. 3§0. 2. Error as to Doubtful Questions of I, aWi — Eberhardt v. Harkless, 115 Fed. Rep. 816; Morrison v. Burnett, 56 App. 129; Patter- son v. Powell, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 253, affirmed 56 N. Y. App. Div. 624, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 380; Hill v. Mynatt, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 163. 3. Error as to Well-settled Point of Law. — Kissam v. Bremerman, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 588. 381. 1. Bullis v. Easton, 96 Iowa 513. See Lord v. Hamilton, 34 Oregon 443. Advice Concerning Compromise. — Bunel v. O'Day, 125 Fed. Rep. 303. 382. 1. Abandonment on Failure to Provide Pees. — Payette v. Willis, 23 Wash. 299. 2. Duty to Prepare Pleadings and Take Neces- sary Steps. — Drury v. Butler, 171 Mass. 171. Failure to Appeal — Contributory Negligence of Client. — Childs u. Comstock, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 160. Limitation on Duty of Attorney. — A lawyer is under no duty to maintain positions which do not accord with his own notions of law and justice, simply because they tend to his client's advantage. Sprague v. Moore, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 377, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 72. 384. 6. Keith v. Marcus, 181 Mass. 377. 385. 5. Proximate Cause. — Forrow v. Ar- nold, 22 R. I. 305 ; Patterson v. Frazer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1077. 38fi. 2. Advice as to Validity of Titles or Securities. — Humboldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, m Ky. 759, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 969 ; Watson v. Calvert Bldg., etc., Assoc, 91 Md. 25 ; Renkert v. Title Guaranty Trust Co., 102 Mo. App. 267. Relation of Attorney and Client Must Exist. — Currey v. Butcher, 37 Oregon 380. Failure to Examine Title Recommended as Good. — Byrnes v. Palmer, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 1, affirmed 160 N. Y. 699. Measure of Damages — Sum Paid in Removing Incumbrances. — Fay v. McGuire, 162 N. Y. 644, affirming 20 N. Y. App. Div 569 4. Investment of Money. — Humboldt Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Ducker, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 969. Mortgage Represented as First Lien, — Fay v. McGuire, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 569, affirmed 162 N. Y. 644. 387. 3. Preparation of Papers. — Aiken v. Van Wert, (Supm: Ct. Tr. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 379- 388. 2. Recordation of Papers. — Gardner v. Wood, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 93; Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532, 57 Am. St. Rep. 662. 4. Loss of Notes. — Gould v. Blanchard, 29 Nova Scotia 361. 392. 1. Lynch v. Munson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 140, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 392. 4. Duty in Transmitting Money to Client. — Dinsmoor v. Bressler, 56 111. App. 207. 393. 1. Attorney's Liability for Money Col- lected for Client. — Uhl v. Kohlmann, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 455 ; Reed v. Hayward, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 416. See Wellenbrock v. Spekert, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 200. Application to Debt Due Attorney Barred by Limitations. — Blair v. Blanton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 321. Payment of Attorney's Debt with Client's Funds. — Kent v. Rockwell, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 88. Collection by Instalments — Payments Must Be Made as Collected. — Matter of Tracy, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 113, affirmed 149 N. Y. 608. Claim Barred by Statute — Knowledge of Client. — Leigh v. Williams, 64 Ark. 165; Schofield v. Woolley, 98 Ga. 548, 58 Am. St. Rep. 3i.T- No Jurisdiction in Equity — Adequate Remedy at Law. — Pfau v. Fullenwider, 102 111. App. 499- Defense that Money Was Garnished. — Ewing v. Freeman, 103 Ga. 811. Accounting — Reasonable Fees and Disburse- me ts. — Attorneys are liable to account to their clients for all moneys received for them 446 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 394-407 394. Attorney Liable as Trustee for Custody of Money Collected. — See note 4. 395. Where an Attorney Collects Claim through Another Attorney. — See note 2. 396. c. Client Must Prove Demand. — See note 3. 6. For Unauthorized Acts. — See note 5. 398. 7. For Acts of Substitutes or Partners — clerks. — See note 2. 9. Damage Must Be Proven. — See note 4. . 400. 10. Defenses to Action for Negligence — b. Statute of Limita- tions — As to Matters of Account. — See notes I, 2. 402. X. Liability of Attorney to Third Persons— 1. In General — Hot Liable where He Acts under Client's Direction. — See note 2. 403. Malicious Proseoution. — See notes 3, 4. 405. 3. For Officers' and Witness Fees — a. The General Rule — Fees of Officers. — See note 4. 406. Witness Fees — Stenographer's Fees. — See note I. 407. Liability by Statutes or Rules of Practice. — See note I. in that capacity, except a reasonable sura for counsel fees and disbursements. Matter of Keen, (Supra. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y. 374- Account in Detail. — Where an attorney has collected money for his client, and is called on to account, he must show in detail what he has done with it, to justify its retention or ex- penditure. Matter of Raby, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 225. The attorney of an executrix, who has ren- dered to his client an account of all moneys or other assets of the succession coming to his hands, has fulfilled his entire duty to account, and owes no further account. Hernandez v. Dart, 109 La. 880. 394. 4. Liable as Trustee for Preservation of Collections. — See Schofield v. Woolley, 98 Ga. 548, 58 Am. St. Rep. 315. 395. 2. The General Rule is that where an attorney is employed to collect a claim and he places it in the hands of another attorney, through whose negligence or misconduct the claim is lost, he is liable therefor to the prin- cipal in the absence of an agreement or assent that such other attorney should be employed. Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md. 434. See Mussey v. Vanstone, 82 Mo. App. 353. Contra. — Madden v. Watts, 59 S. Car. 81. Consent of Client. — But where the client con- sents to the placing of the claim with another attorney for collection, payment to the latter is a valid discharge of the debt. Dentzel v. City, etc., R. Co., 90 Md. 434. 396. 8. necessity of Demand. — Banner v. D'Auby, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 525 ; Madden v. Watts, 59 S. Car. 85, quoting 3 Am. .and Eng. Ekcyc. of Law (2d ed.) 396. See Leigh v. Williams, 64 Ark. 163. Action for Breach of Duty — Ho Demand Neces- sary. — Vooth v. McEachen, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 30. Action to Recover Chose in Action — Demand Unnecessary. — Metz v. Abney, 64 S. Car. 254. 5. Attorney Liable for Loss from Unauthorized Acts, — Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 43; Harbin v. Masterman, (1896) 1 Ch. 351 (costs of appeal in interest of solici- tor). Wrongfully Making Client Party — Liable for Costs. — Fricker v. Van Grutten, (1896) 2 Ch. 649. 398. 2. Clerks. — Matter of McGuinness, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 606. 4. Actual and Exemplary Damages Recoverable. — Patterson v. Frazer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1077. Withdrawal of Attorney — No Presumption Without Evidence that Adverse Result Was Caused Thereby. — Cullison v. Lindsay, 108 Iowa 124. 400. 1. Written Contract. — Sanborn v. Plow- man, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 484. 2. Negligence. — In order to render an at- torney liable for negligence in the examination of a title, the relation of attorney and client must exist ; he is not liable to a. third person. Currey v. Butcher, 37 Oregon 380. Advice to Client to Commit Wrongful Act — Clear Proof Required. — Heffner v. Wise, 5 1 La. Ann. 1637. 402. 2. Not Liable in Trespass in Seizing Goods. — Arnold v. Phillips, 59 111. App. 213. 403. 3. Malicious Prosecution. — Liquid Carbonic Acid Mfg. Co. v. Convert, 82 111. App. 39. 4. What Is Malice. — Ahrens, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Hoeher, 106 Ky. 692. 405. 4.' Principle of Agency Applicable.— Livingston Middleditch Co. v. New York Col- lege of Dentistry, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 260, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 405. Liable When Unauthorized Suit Is Brought. — Geilinger v. Gibbs, (1897) 1 Ch. 479. Some of Clients Residents. — Berrie v. Atkin- son, 114 Ga. 708. Poundage Fees — Laws 1892, p. 868, c. 418 of New York. — Gadski-Tauscher v. Graff, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 418. 406. 1. For Witness Fees. — See Ross v. Niles, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 142. Expert Witness — Special Promise — Attorney Interested. — An attorney may make himself liable by a special promise for the compensa- tion of an expert witness called to testify for the client, especially if there be evidence to warrant the jury in believing that the attor- ney had a personal financial interest in the result of the trial. Pessano v. Eyre, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 157. 407. 1. New York Statute. — Code Civ. Pro. N. Y., § 3278, does not apply to the Surro- gate's Court. Rasch's Estate, (Surrogate Ct.) 28 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 98, 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 459. 447 408-411 ATTORNEY AN 'D CLIENT Vol. III. 408. Carelessness. 409. note 3. 410. note 3. 411. c. ON Ground of Misconduct or Negligence — ignorance or — See note 6. XI. Change of Attorneys — 1. Client's Right to Change* — See Vested Interest in Cause of Action — Contingent Fee. — See note I . Entry of Final Judgment — Change of Attorney Without Formal Order. — See 2. By Withdrawal of Attorney — Leave of Court. — See note 7. Consent of Client — Just Cause for Withdrawal. — See note I. What Is Sufficient Cause for Withdrawal. — See note 5- 3. Effect of Substitution. — See note 7. 408. 6. Mistake of Solicitor — Client Alleged Lunatic — Ex Parte Order. — In re Armstrong, (1S96) 1 Ch. 536. 409. 3. General Rale as to Client's Right to Change Attorneys — California. — Gage o. At- water, 136 Cal. 170. Kentucky. — Breathitt Coal, etc., Co. v. Gregory, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 148; Henry v. Vance, 1 1 1 Ky. 72 ; Joseph v. Lapp, 78 S. W. Rep. 1119, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1875; Root v. Mcllvaine, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 498. Montana. — State v. District Ct., 30 Mont. 8. New Jersey. — Hudson Trust, etc., Inst. v. Carr-Curran Paper Mills, (N. J. 1899) 44 Atl. Rep. 638 ; Delaney v. Husband, 64 N. J. L. 275. New York Philadelphia v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 1 N. Y. App. Div. 387; O'Connor v. Hendrick, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 432; Kane v. Rose, 177 N. Y. 557, affirming 87 N. Y. App. Div. 101 ; Jeffards t», Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div, 45 ; Bryant v . Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 542 ; Yueng- ling v. Betz, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 8 ; Matter of Mitchell, 57 N. Y App. Div. 22; O'Sullivan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 268. See Whitman v. Sei- bert, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 814, 59 N. Y. Supp. 185. Utah. ^- Sandberg v. Victor Gold, etc., Min. Co., 18 Utah 77, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 409. f Washington. — Schultheis v. Nash, 27 Wash. 250- Wyoming. — Sheridan County v. Hanna, g Wyo. 374, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 409, See Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 24 Tex. Civ. App- 395- .Leave of Court Necessary. — Felt u. Nichols, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 404. Jurisdiction Of Court — Limited to Fending Proceedings. — Matter of Krakauer, (Surrogate Ct.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 674. Contract for Fee as Evidence. — Schultheis v. Nash, 27 Wash. 250. . Order of Reference to Ascertain Compensation — Referee Bound by Contract. — Matter of Jerome Ave., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 459. Substitution by Assignee of Cause of Action. — Sandberg v. Victor Gold, etc., Min. Co., 18 Utah 66. Dissolution of Firm — Substitution of Partner. — Schneible v. Travelers' Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 522. Appointment by Court to Represent Absent Heirs — Arbitrary Discharge Denied, — Lee v.- Superior Ct., 112 Cal. 354, Ho Compensation Where Attorney Was Im- proper and Neglectful. — Barkley v. New Cent., etc., R. Co., 35 N. Y. App. Div. 167. Statutory Right in California. — ■ Woodbury v. Nevada Southern R. Co., 121 Cal. 165; Lee v. Superior Ct., 112 Cal. 354. Statute in Washington. — Payette v. Willis> 2s Wash. 299. In Wisconsin by Rule of Court no order of substitution will be granted unless consent in writing be obtained, signed by the party and his attorney ; or for cause shown on due notice to the court or presiding judge. McMahon v. Snyder, 117 Wis.- 463. 410. 1. Attorney's Right under Contract for Contingent Fee. — Such v. New York Bank, 121 Fed. Rep. 202; Joseph v. Lapp, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 1 1 19; Henry v. Vance, in Ky. 72. See Breathitt Coal, etc., Co. v. Gregory, (Ivy. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 148 ; Root v. Mctlvaine, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 498. 8. When Formal Order of Substitution Tfnneces- sary. — Magnolia Metal Co. v. Sterlingworth R. Supply Co., 37 N. Y. App. Div. 366. 7. Leave of Court Necessary to Withdrawal. — Hickox v. Fels, 86 111. App. 216; Mclnnes v. Sutton, 35 Wash. 389, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 410. Withdrawal After General Appearance Does Not Affect Jurisdiction of Court. — Famous Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox, 180 111. 246. 411. 1. Consent of Client — Cause for With- drawal. — Hickox v. Fels, 86 111. App. 216; Schuylkill River Road, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 559; Adams v. Rathbun, 14 S. Dak. 556, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 4ir. Withdrawal Without Cause — Other Attorneys Substituted. — Cary v. Cary, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 471. 5. Failure of Client to Provide for Fees on Request, — Silver Peak Gold Min. Co. v. Har- ris, 116 Fed. Rep. 439,- Cullison v. Lindsay, 108 Iowa 124. 7. Effect of Substitution. — Mitchell v. Piqua Club Assoc, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 366. See Bittiner v. Goldman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 330. Right to Compensation — Death of First Attorney. — Matter of Redmond, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 4541 8 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 309. Where the Attorney Consents to the substitu- tion of another by signing a consent in blank, the former is incapacitated from further acting in the cause. Felt v. Nichols, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 404. 448 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 411-414 411. XII. Summary Jurisdiction Over Attorneys — 1. To Compel Pay- ment Over of Money — a. General JIule. — See note 8. 413. Power Inherent in Courts of Record. — See note 1. Statutes — Penal in Character. — See note 2. Defenses. — See note 4. Money Retained as Proper Compensation, — See note 5- b. Applies Only as between Attorney and Client — General Rule stated. — See note 6. 413. Relation of Attorney and Client Must Exist. — See note I. If Merely the Relation of Debtor and Creditor Exists. — See note 2. 414. 2. Jurisdiction in Other Respects. — See note 1. Delivery of Client's Papers, — See note 2. Limits of Rule. — See notes 4, 6. 411. 8. Power of Court to Compel Attorney to Pay Over Moneys — England. — In re Car- roll, (1902) 2 Ch. 175. California. — Brunings v. Townsend, 139 Cal. 137. Georgia. — Haygood v. McKenzie, 119 Ga. 466. Iowa. — Downs v. Davis, 113 Iowa 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 41 1 ; Union Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Soderquist, 115 Iowa 695. New Jersey. — Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736, 97 Am. St. Rep. 692. See Lynde v. Lynde, (N. J. 1901) so Atl. Rep. 659- New York. — Matter of Curtis, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 434; Shgtwell v. Dixon, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 123. Ohio. — Cotton v. Ashley, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 6. Relation as Attorney at Law Must Exist. — Matter of Hillebrandt, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 191. Amount of Verdict Against Attorney.— Gabriel v. Schillinger Fire Proof Cement, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 313. The Purpose of the Summary Proceeding is merely to afford a speedier and possibly more adequate remedy because of the obligations of the attorney as an officer of the court. Downs v. Davis, 113 Iowa 529. 412. 1. Exercise of Power Ib Discretionary with Court. — Keeney v. Tredwell, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 521. 2. Statutory Regulation. — See Union Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Soderquist, 115 Iowa 695. 4. Defenses. — The attorney must do more than make assertions by way of counterclaim, and such assertions should be sufficiently sup- ported to call for more formal investigation. Matter of Tracy, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 113, af- firmed 149 N. Y. 608. See Union Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Soderquist, '1 1 5 Iowa 695. 5. Money Held by Attorney as Proper Compen- sation. — Union Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Soder- quist, 115 Iowa 69S. Under a Valid Contract for Services a judge cannot arbitrarily order an attorney to refund a retainer for the mere reason that in his opin- ion it had not been earned. Tomsky v. Su- ■ perior Ct., 131 Cal. 620. 6. Remedy Available to Client Only. — Hay- good v. Haden, 119 Ga. 463; Matter of Dailey, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 523. See Brunings v, Townsend, 139 Cal. 137- Statement of Rule. — " The rule upon this sub. j§ct is that when "the employment qf an attor. I 8upf C. 9( fc.— «9 ney is so connected with his professional char- acter as to afford a presumption that it formed the ground of his employment, the court will interfere in a summary way to compel him to execute the trust reposed in him ; but where an attorney is employed in a matter wholly unconnected with his professional character the court will not exercise this jurisdiction over him, but will leave the applicant to his remedy by an ordinary action to right the wrong to which he has been subjected." Matter of Ham- mann, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 417. 413. 1. Relation of Attorney and Client Necessary. — Haygood v. McKenzie, 119 Ga. 466, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 413; Haygood v. Haden, 119 Ga. 463; Matter of Hillebrandt, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 191 ; Taylor v. Long Island R. Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 595 ; Matter of Langslow, 167 N. Y. 314; Matter of Hirshbach, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 79 ; Re McBrady, 19 Ont. Pr. 37. Claim of One Attorney Against Another Not Within Rule. — Matter of Dailey, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 523. 2. When Relation Is that of Debtor and Creditor Simply. — Matter of Neville, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 102. Rule Does Not Apply Between Attorney and As- sociate. — Haygood v. Haden, 119 Ga. 463. 414. 1. Summary Jurisdiction in Other Mat- ters. — Matter of Barkley, 42 'N. Y. App. Div. 597 ; Falor v. Beery, 8 Ohio Dec. 306, 6 Ohio N. P. 290 ; In re Evans, 22 Utah 366, 83 Am. St. Rep. 794. See Lynde v. Lynde, (N. J. igoi) 50 Atl. Rep. 659. To Make Good Negligent Loss. — Marsh v. Jo- seph, (1897) 1 Ch. 213. Compelling Extension of Time to Mortgagor. — Robertson v. Clocke, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 363. Relief from Fraudulent Bill. — Tate v. Field, 60 N. J. Eq. 42. 2. Power to Compel Delivery of Documents to Client. — Cotton v. Ashley, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 6. 4. Matter of Krakauer, (Surrogate Ct.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 674. 6. Disbarment — Charges Affecting Character as Citizen. — While a court may exercise a sum- mary jurisdiction to correct professional abuses of attorneys, and may for self-protection strike an attorney from the roll in extreme cases, it cannot do so on charges merely affecting his character as a citizen, N^ff fi ??Ql?!?r M%- £9m 00 Mo, App. ;9$< 414-418 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 414. XIII. Compensation — 1. Right to Compensation — a. Generally — In the United States. — See note IO. 415. b. Who Entitled to Recover Compensation — only Attorney Duly Admitted May Becover. — See note I. 416. c. Attorneys for Infants, Married Women, Etc. — bee notes 3, 4. 417. Guardian May Contract for Attorney for Infant. — See note 3. d. Services to Estates of Decedents. — See note 5. 418. e. Services in Defending Poor Persons — Duty to Defend Gratui- tously. — See note 1. Indiana and Wisconsin Doctrine. — - See note 3. Statutes Providing for Compensation. — See note 4. 414. 10. United States — Fees Recoverable. Muller v. Kelly, 116 Fed. Rep. 545; Rogers v. Polytechnic Institute, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 81 ; Bennett v. Donovan, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 95 ; Thomas v. Morrison, (Tex. Civ. App. 189S) 46 S. W. Rep. 46; Camden v. McCoy, 48 W. Va - 377- . „ _ . Contract Enforced Without Proof of Fairness and Reasonableness. — Union Surety, etc., Co. v. Tenney, 102 111. App. 95, affirmed 200 111. 349. Attorney Entitled to Fee as Per Contract. — Townsend u. Rhea, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 865. Bad Bargain Binding on Attorney. — Reynolds v. Sorosis Fruit Co., 133 Cal. 625. Contract Binding — No Recovery in Quantum Meruit.— Matter of Public Works Department, 167 N. Y. 501. Amount of Services Immaterial. — Browder v. Long, 66 S. W. Rep. 600, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2068. Hard Contract Enforced. — Deering v. Schreyer, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 322. Unfair Contract with Woman Disregarded. — Matter of Pieris, 176 N. Y. 566, affirming 82 N. Y. App. Div. 466. Provision in Mortgage in Event of Foreclosure. — Nathan v. Brand, 167 111. 607. Contract to Procure Reduction of Assessment — Ownership of Lot Immaterial. — Hudson v. San- ders, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 342, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 615. Agreement for Compensation Ojit of Recovery — Personal Judgment Against Client. — Hazeltine v. Brockway, 26 Colo. 291. Employment Necessary. — The mere sending of an account to an alleged client, and the re- tention of that account, do not give, an attor- ney a cause of action, unless the employment stated in the account is established. Kellogg v. Rowland, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 416. Reasonableness of Fee. — A fee for the collec- tion of a claim of $19,017.05 by suit, when the claim was litigated for a fee of $500 cer- tain, and $1,000 additional in case of success, is not unreasonable. Fox v. Willis, 114 Ky. 940. 415. 1. Unlicensed Attorney Cannot Recover Fees. — Hughes v. Dougherty, 62 111. App. 464. State laws Do Not Apply to Persons Appearing Before Land Department. — Mulligan v. Smith, (Colo. 1904) 76* Pac. Rep. 1063. Persons Other than Attorneys. — "There is nothing in law prohibiting persons other than attorneys from recovering the reasonable value of their services when performed at the request pf another." Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566. Evidence. — Where it was contended that be- fore an attorney could recover for legal services he should have produced a license authorizing him to practice law, it was sufficient evidence of his admission when he testified that he had been a practicing lawyer for over twenty-five years. Goldsmith v. St. Louis Candy Co., 85 Mo. App. 595. 416. 3. See Dunham v. Bentley, 103 Iowa 136- Divorce Suit — Contract by Married Woman Valid. — McCurdy v. Dillon, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 746- 4. Bradford v. Mackenzie, 89 Md. 763, 43 Atl. Rep. 923 ; Crafts v. Carr, 24 R. I. 397, 96 Am. St. Rep. 721. 417. 8. Tomsky v. Superior Ct., 131 Cal. 620 ; Schultheis v. Nash, 27 Wash. 250. California Statute — Contract Without Order of Court Invalid. — Morse v. Hinckley, 124 Cal. 154. 5. Amount of Fees. — Rickel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Iowa 148; Matter of Ludeke, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 676 ; Lynch v. Spicer, 53 W. Va. 426. See Blount County Bank v. Smith, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 296. Liability of Next of Kin for Professional Ser- vices in Administration. — Johnson v. Williams, 96 Tenn. 339. 418. 1. Counsel Must Serve Gratuitously.— — Hyatt v. Hamilton County, (Iowa 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 508, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 418; De Long v. Muskegon County, in Mich. 568; Yates v. Taylor County Ct., 47 W. Va. 385, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 417, 418. 8. Rule in Indiana and Wisconsin. — Houk v. Montgomery County, 14 Ind. App. 662. Construction of Wisconsin Statute — Time Spent Out of Court. — Green Lake County v. Waupaca County, 113 Wis. 425. 4. Iowa Statute. — State v. Behrens, 109 Iowa 58. Under a joint indictment the attorney is en- titled to two fees. Clark v. Osceola County, 107 Iowa 502. The Michigan Statute, — De Long v. Muske- gon County, in Mich. 568. Court Fixes Compensation. — Withey v . Osce- ola Circuit 'Judge, 108 Mich. 168. New York Statute. — People v. Foster, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 19; People v. Heiselbetz. (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 100, 5 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 165. Applies to Trial and Appellate Courts Separately. — People v. Ferraro, 162 N. Y. 545. 450 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 419-420 419. Rule in Civil Cases. — See note I. 420. 2. Amount — a. Generally tract. — - See note i . Amount of Fee. — Matter of Monfort, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 567. Uaximum Fee Thereunder. — People v. Heisel- betz, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 199. Fee of Associate Counsel. — Matter of Wald- heimer, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 366. Reappointment to Try Appeal — One Fee. — Matter of Purdy, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 303. 419. 1. In Civil Cases. — See Mathieu v. Beauchamp, 11 Quebec Super. Ct. 307. Suing in Forma Pauperis — Quantum Meruit. — Whelan v. Manhattan R. Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 219. Sufficiency of Affidavit. — The plaintiff's affi- davit that he is unable to give a prosecution bond of two hundred dollars or to deposit that amount for that purpose is not sufficient, as it does not necessarily follow that he is un- able to compensate his counsel in some way other than by a division of the amount of re- covery, or that his counsel had not assumed the prosecution of the suit without compensation. Allison v. Southern R. Co., 129 N. Car. 336. The Michigan Statute. — De Long v. Muske- gon County, in Mich. 568. 420. 1. Recovery on Quantum Meruit — United States. — Herman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 184. Alabama. — Davis v. Walker, 131 Ala. 204. Arizona. — De Mund Lumber Co. v. Still- well, (Ariz. 1902) 68 Pac. Rep. 543. Colorado. — Fairbanks v. Weeber, 15 Colo. App. 268. Georgia. — Wells v. Haynes, 101 Ga. 841. Illinois. — Metheny v. Bohn, 164 III. 495; Bingham v. Spruill, 97 111. App. 374. Indiana. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Shrum, 24 Ind. App. 96. Kansas. — Allen v. Parish, 65 Kan. 496. Kentucky. — Warren Deposit Bank v. Bar- clay, (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 853; Ger- mania Safety Vault, etc., Co. v. Hargis, 64 S. W. Rep. 516, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 874. Louisiana. — Rabasse's Succession, 51 La. Ann. 590. Massachusetts. — Cooke v. Plaisted, 176 Mass. 374. Missouri. — Goldsmith v. St. Louis Candy Co., 85 Mo. App. 595 ; Ottofy v. Keyes, 91 Mo. App. 146 ; Rumsey v. People's R. Co., 84 Mo. App. 508 ; Brownrigg v. Massengale, 97 Mo. App. 190 ; Kingsbury v. Joseph, 94 Mo. App. 298. Montana. — Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420. Nebraska. — Brennan-Love Co. v. Mcintosh, 62 Neb. 522. Mew York. — Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420 ; Allen v. Baker, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 337; Cooper v. Cooper, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 595 ; British Empire Typesetting Mach. Co. v. Spellissy, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 640 ; Mat- ter of Pieris, 176 N. Y. 566, affirming 82 N. Y. App. Div. 466; Ferdon v. Ferdon, .1 N. Y. Reasonable Compensation — Absence 0? Con- App. Div. 629. See Reynolds v. Kaplan, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 420. Oklahoma. — Gillette v. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91. Pennsylvania. — McGee's Estate, 205 Pa. St. 590. Rhode Island. — Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22. Tennessee. — ■ American Lead Pencil Co. v. Davis, (Tenn. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 864. See Pickett v. Gore, (Tenn. Ch. igoo) 58 S. W. Rep. 402. Texas. — -Tindol v. Beasley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 155; Herndon v. Lam- mers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 414. Virginia. — Howard v. Charleston First Nat. Bank, (Va. 1897) 27 S. E. Rep. 492. Washington. — Payette v. Willis, 23 Wash. 299. Express Contract — No Quantum Meruit. — Roche v. Baldwin, 135 Cal. 522. No Employment, No Compensation. — White- sell v. New Jersey, etc., R., etc., Co., 68 N. Y. App. Div. 82. Void Contract — Recovery for Services Performed. — Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81 ; Buck v. Eureka, 124 Cal. 61 ; McCurdy v. Dillon, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 746, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 927 ; Gammons v. Johnson, 69 Minn. 488 ; Dorr v. Camden, 55 W. Va. 226. Contract limiting Maximum Fee. — Russell v. Young, 94 Fed. Rep. 45, 36 C. C. A. 71. Client ',0 Fix Fee by Contract — Amount Deter- mined Binding When Made in Good Faith. — Ten- nant v. Fawcett, 94 Tex. 1 1 1 ; Tennant v. Fawcett, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 611. Agreement Not to Sue until Value Fixed No Defense. — Roche v. Baldwin, 135 Cal. 522. Services Not Legal — Business Transactions. — Warder v. Seitz, 157 Mo. 140. Services Performed by Attorney and Assistant. — Vilas v. Bundy, 106 Wis. 168. Fee Against Weight of Evidence as to Value. — Whallen v. Hallam, 76 S. W. Rep. 860, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 965. Value Not Affected by Agreement to Charge Nothing if Unsuccessful. — Walbridge v. Barrett, 118 Mich. 433. Apportionment of Compensation Where Certain Cases Selected from Several as Test Cases. — Greeff v. Miller, 87 Fed. Rep. 33. Liberal Allowance Not Disturbed on Appeal. — Central Trust Co. v. Ingersoll, (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 427. Auditor's Finding Approved by Court Not Re- versed on Appeal unless Clearly Erroneous. — Com. v. Order of Solon, 192 Pa. St. 487. Obtaining Option of Purchase. — Aylen v . Lind- say, 23 Quebec Super. c!t. 345. Attorney Employed by Agent. — Fargo Gas- light, etc., Co. v. Greer, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 164, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 589. No Recovery for Unnecessary Services Due to Negligence or Inexperience. — Leo v. Leyser, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 549. Recovery on Quantum Meruit — Attorney Ap- pointed by Court to defend the interest of non- resident legatees. Lee v. Superior Ct., 112 Cal, 354; Williams v. Sapieha, 94 Tex. 430, 451 421 432 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. 421. The Circumstances to Be Considered in Determining the Compensation. — See notes 12 3. 422. See notes I, 2, 3. Determination by Court — Action on Notes. — Burns v. Staacke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899; 53 S. W Rep. 354. Evidence. — Herndon v. Lammers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 414. Evidence of Seasonable Value Admissible. — People's Casualty Claim Adjustment Co. v. Darrow, 172 111. 62. Evidence of Attorneys — Fee Not Less than Lowest Estimate. — Reed v. Reed, (Ky. 1903 J 74 S. W. Rep. 207. Retaining Fee. — In estimating the value of an attorney's services it is proper to include in the consideration a reasonable retaining fee. Roche v. Baldwin, 143 Cal. 186. Two Attorneys. — Where two attorneys are severally employed in a cause, each is en- titled to recover for the reasonable value of his own services, in the absence of any different contract. One is not entitled to recover sev- erally one-half of the value of the services of both attorneys. MacDonald v. Tittmann, 96 Mo. App. 536. 421. 1. Amount and Character of Services — United States. — Sanders v. Graves, 105 Fed. Rep. 849; Glidden v. Cowen, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 48. Illinois. — Wattson v. Jones, 101 111. App. 572- Iowa. — Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442. Louisiana. — Fenner v. McCan, 49 La. Ann. 600. New York.- — Tinney v. Pierrepont, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 627. Ohio. — In re Commercial Bank, 4 Ohio Dec. 440. Rhode Island. — Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22. Tennessee. — Taylor v. Badoux, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 919. Virginia. — Parsons v. Maury, 101 Va. 516. Advice to Sheriff as to Levying Attachment. — People's Nat. Bank v. Geisthardt, 55 Neb. 232. Abstracts of Separate Titles. — In re Margetts, (1896) 2 Ch. 263. Sale of Separate Lots. — In re Thomas, (1900) 1 Ch. 454. Several Arguments on Appeal — Reargument. — Matter of Kellogg, 96 N. Y. App. Div. 608. The Procurement of Franchises may not in- volve a legal question, but it is frequently per- formed by lawyers, and is generally regarded as in the line of professional employment, and compensation may be recovered therefor. Breen v. Union R. Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 122. 2. Labor. Time, and Trouble Involved — United States. — Tuttle v. Claflin, 86 Fed. Rep. 964; Sanders v. Graves, 105 Fed. Rep. 849. Illinois. — McMannomy u. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 111. 497. Montana. — Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 421. New York. — ScMesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420 et seq.<; Tinney v. Pjerrepont, 18 N, Y. App. 411 Ohio. — In re Commercial Bank. 4 Ohio Dec. 440. Tennessee. — Butler v. King, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 697 ; Callender v. Turpin, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 1057; Wright v. Knoxville Livery, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900; 59 S. W. Rep. 677; Vinson v. Cantrell, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 1034. Virginia. — Parsons v. Maury, 101 Va. 516. Of Associate Counsel. — Calhoun v. Akeley, 82 Minn. 354. Investigation of Title — All Necessary Services. — Brownrigg v. Massengale, 97 Mo. App. igo. 3. Character and Importance of Litigation. — Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442; Fenner v. McCan, 49 La. Ann. 600 ; Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 421 ; Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420 et seq. See Combs v. Combs, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 298. 422. 1. Amount Involved — Arkansas. -^ Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 74 Am. St Rep. 81. Illinois. — McMannomy v. Chicago, etc., B Co., 167 111. 497. Kentucky. — Fryer v. Dicken, (Ky. 1898) v S. W. Rep. 341. See Warren Deposit Bank 1 Barclay, 60 S. W. Rep. 853, 22 Ky. L. Rej, 15SS ; Combs v. Combs, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W Rep. 298. Montana. — Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quotin c 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 421 New York. — Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420 et seq.; In re Thomasson, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 408. Rhode Island. — Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22. Tennessee. — Wright v. Knoxville Livery, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 677; Butler v. King, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 697 ; Vinson v. Cantrell, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 1034; Gribble v. Ford, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 1007. Evidence — Admissibility as to Value. — Graves v. Sanders, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 690. Claim of $2,224.70 — Fee of $200 Is Reasonable for Dissolving Attachment. — Billington v. Poite- vent, etc., Lumber Co., 52 La. Ann. 1397. 2. Skill and Experience Required. — Levinson v. Sands, 74 111. App. 273 ; McMannomy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 111. 497; Clark 1: Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442; Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 421 ; Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc," of Law (2d ed.) 420 et seq.; Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22; Par- sons v. Maury, 101 Va. 316. Of Associate Counsel. — Calhoun v. Akeley, 82 Minn. 354. AbnrMtin* Tl^ Wright * W?S 9fftr Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 4*8-495 423. See notes i, 2, 3. The Opinions of Members of the Bar. — See note 4. 424. Local Usage as to Fees. — See note I. Fees of Other Attorneys. — See note 2. 425. b. Where Employment IS Prematurely Ended • Rule. — See notes 1, 2. (2) By Act of Client — (a) General Rule. — See note 3. (1) General L. Ins. Co., 11 Ohio Dec. 131, 8 Ohio N. P. 232. 422. 3. Professional Standing of Plaintiff. — Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442; Fenner v. McCan, 49 La. Ann. 600 ; Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 421 ; Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 420 et seq. 423. 1. Whether Fee Contingent or Absolute. — McMannomy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 111. 497- 2. Result Attained. — Clarke v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442 ; Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 423 ; Hempstead v. New York, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 300 ; Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22. 3. Financial Condition of Client. — Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442. 4. Opinion of Attorneys as Evidence — Ala- bama. — Brown v. Prude, 97 Ala. 639. Colorado. — Hazeltine v. Brockway, 26 Colo. 291. Illinois. — McMannomy v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 111. 497 ; Beall v. Robinson, 91 111. App. 247; Sexton v. Bradley, no 111. App. 495. Iowa. — Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Iowa 442. Kentucky. — Louisville Gas Co. v. Hargis, (Ky. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 946. Missouri. — Kingsbury v. Joseph, 94 Mo. App. 298 ; Brownrigg v. Massengale, 97 Mo. App. 190. Tennessee. — Butler v. King, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 697; Pickett v. Gore, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 402. See Taylor v. Badoux, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 919- Expert Evidence — Independent Judgment of Court or Jury. — Schlesinger v. Dunne, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 531, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 423. Jury to Consider Expert Testimony in Light of Their Own Knowledge. — Greeff v. Miller, 87 Fed. Rep. 33 ; Sanders v. Graves, 105 Fed. Rep. 849; Willard v. Williams, 10 Colo. App. 140. Question for Jury. — Beard v. Morgan, 71 111. App. 564. Expert Opinion Advisory. — Walbridge v. Bar- rett, 118 Mich. 433. Expert Testimony Merely Advisory — .T-'-y Proper Judges. — Cosgrove v. Leonard, 134 Mo. 419. Expert Evidence — Whether True Is Question for Jury. — Coonan v. Loewenthal, 129 Cal. 197. Attorney's Evidence Considered by Jury. — Sex- ton v. Bradley, no 111. App. 49s. All Facts and Circumstances in Evidence. — Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., 453 Min. Co., 29 Mont. 409, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 423. Question for Jury and Judge. — National Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fifer, 71 111. App. 295. Question for Court — Binding on Appeal unless Manifestly Erroneous. — Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. McClure, (C. C. A.) 78 Fed. Rep. 209; Rich- ards' Succession, 49 La. Ann. n 15. Fee Allowed in Another Suit — Presumed Rea- sonable. — Ramage v. Littlejohn, 17 Wash. 386. Services Not Legal — Expert Testimony Inad- missible. — Warder v. Seitz, 157 Mo. 140. Professional Standing and Experience of Expert. — In considering expert testimony the jury must take into consideration the professional standing and experience of the witness. Cos- grove v. Burton, 104 Mo. App. 698. 424. 1. Usage of Lawyers in Locality. — Bingham v. Spruill, 97 111. App. 374; Sexton v. Bradley, no 111. App. 495; Metheny v. Bohn, 164 111. 495; Nathan v. Brand, 167 111. 607; Gorman v. Banigan, 22 R. I. 22. See Warren Deposit Bank v. Barclay, 60 S. W. Rep. 853, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1555. Local Usage as to Expenses. — Clark v. Ells- worth, 104 Iowa 442. Trip to Another State — County Schedule of Fees Inadmissible. — Gaitherz/. Dougherty, (Ky. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 2. 2. Evidence of Fees Paid Other Attorneys.— Forrester v. Boston, etc., Consol. Copper, etc., Min. Co., 29 Mont. 413, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 424. 425. 1. Contingent Fee upon Obtaining Judg- ment — Settlement by Client. — De Graffenreid v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 66 Ark. 260. 2. Compromise by Client Is Termination. — Bogert v. Adams, 8 Colo. App. 185. 3. Recovery on Quantum. Meruit — United States. — Such v. New York Bank, 121 Fed. Rep. 202. Indiana. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 639, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 425. Kentucky. — Bowser v. Patrick, 65 S. W. Rep. 824, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1578 ; Henry v. Vance, in Ky. 72; Breathitt Coal, etc., Co. v. Greg- ory, 78 S. W. Rep. 148, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1507. Missouri. — Jordan v. Davis, 172 Mo. 599; Cosgrove v. Burton, 104 Mo. App. 698. Montana. — Harris v. Root, 28 Mont. 139- Foley v. Kleinschmidt, 28 Mont. 198. New York. — Naumer v. Gray, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 361 ; Bryant v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 542; Whitesell v. New Jersey, etr., R., etc., Co., 68 N. Y. App Div. 82; O'Neill v. Crane, 65 N. Y. App. Div! 358; Yuells v. Hyman, (Supm. Ct. App. T 1 8,1 N. Y. Supp. 460. ' 4 Pennsylvania. — Powers v. Rich, 184 Pa St 32s, 41 W. N. C. (Pa.) 407. Tennessee. — Rogers v. O'Mary, 95 Tenn. 514. 426 430 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol. III. note 3. 437. 436. See notes 1,2. (b) Discharge of Attorney Without Cause — Action on a Quantum Meruit. — bee Action for Damages for Breach of Contract. — See note 4. Measure of Damages. — See note 5- Kule of Damages Where Fee Is Agreed upon Contingently. — See note I. Remedy by Action to Enforce Contract — Compensation Actually Earned. — See note 2. Compensation for Constructive Service. — See note 3. 428. (c) Discharge of Attorney for Cause. — See notes 2, 3. 429. (3) By Act of Attorney — Abandonment of Employment by Attorney — For Cause. — See note 1. Without Cause. — See note 2. 430. (4) By Combined Act of Client and Attorney. — See note 2. Texas. — Southern Nat. Bank v. Curtis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 911. Wyoming. — Sheridan County v. Hanna, 9 Wyo. 374, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 425. Contract for Services Measure of Damages. — Matter of Jerome Ave., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 459- Client Liable for Retainer. — Union Surety, etc., Co. v. Tenney, 102 111. App. 95, affirmed 200 111. 349- Proper to Send Matter to Referee to Determine Amount. — Philadelphia v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 1 N. Y. App. Div. 387. Compromise — Contingent Fee. — Harris v. Rooi, 28 Mont. 159. 426. 1. Action for Damages. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 639, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 425-427 ; Copp v. Colonial Coal, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 773; Johnston v. Cutchin, 133 N. Car. 119. 2. Action to Enforce Contract. — Reynolds v. Clark County, 162 Mo. 680. Compromise of Cause by Client. — Bogert u. Adams, 8 Colo. App. 185. 3. Recovery on Quantum Meruit. — Weil v. Finneran, 70 Ark. 509 ; Joseph v. Lapp, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 1 1 19. Completion of Contract Prevented by Client. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 632. Completion of Cause. — If upon the completion of the litigation the client repudiates his con- tract, the attorney may recover on a quantum meruit. Dailey v. Devlin, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 62. 4. Discharge Without Cause — Action for Dam- ages. — Watson v. Columbia Min. Co., 118 Ga. 603; Jordan v. Davis, 172 Mo. 599; Copp v. Colonial Coal, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 773. See Weil v. Finneran, 70 Ark. 509. No Services Performed. — Henry v. Vance, in Ky. 72. 5. Measure of Damages. — Reynolds 0. Clark County, 162 Mo. 680; Graut v. Langley, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 776, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 426 ; Sheri- dan County v. Hanna, 9 Wyo. 374, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 426. 427. 1. Rule of Damages in Case of Contingent Fees. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 639, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 427; Breathitt Coal, etc., Co. v. Gregory, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 148; Joseph v. Lapp, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 1 1 19; Harris v. Root, 28 Mont. 169, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 427; Yuells v. Hyman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 460. Contra. — " It is held in certain cases that where by contract the fee of the attorney is contingent upon the amount recovered, the client may at any time, without cause, dis- charge him and revoke his agency, subject to the right of the attorney to recover his com- pensation, as if his contract of employment was fully performed. It is said in these cases that such a contract is to be construed as fixing the mode of compensation only." Villhauer v. Toledo, 5 Ohio Dec. 8. Elements of Damage. — In estimating the dam- ages the jury should consider the extent of the services rendered, and the fact that the attor- ney's employment prevented his accepting em- ployment from the other side. Henry v. Vance, in Ky. 72. 2. Recovery on Contract for Past Services. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 635, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 427. 3. Wrongful Discharge — Entire Compensation. — Graut v. Langley, (Supm. Ct. App. ,T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 776, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 427 ; Herndon v. Lam- mers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 414, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 427. 428. 2. No Recovery for Services Subsequent to Discharge. — Bassford v. Swift, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 149. Neglect to Enforce Verdict. — Matter of Bark- ley, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 597. 3. Henry v. Vance, 11 1 Ky. 72. 429. 1. Abandonment for Cause. — Campbell v. Goodman, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 609 ; Thomas v. Morrison, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 46. Performance Prevented by Attorney. — Rich- ards v. Washburn, 163 N. Y. 585, affirming 28 N. Y. App. Div. 109. 2. Abandonment Without Cause — No Recovery. — Justice v. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 276, 65 Am. St. Rep. 405, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 429 ; Blanton v. King, 73 Mo. App. 148 ; Cary v. Cary, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 471. See Bullis v. Easton, 96 Iowa 513; Hal- bert ?». Gibbs, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 126. 430. 2. Justice v. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 276, 454 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 430-434 430. (5) By Act of Law. — See note 3. (6) By Act of God — Death of Attorney. — See note 4. 431. Effect upon Contingent Fee. — See notes 2, 3. c Fee Fixed in Mortgage or Note — Mortgage. — See note 4. 433. Notes. — See note 1. statutes. — See note 2. 433. 3. Contracts for Compensation After Relation Established — Sach Contraots Jealously Guarded. — See note I. Contracts After Litigation Ended. — See note 3. 434. Contracts for Compensation Necessary — Not Disturbed unless Unfair. — See note 1. The Construction of Special Contracts. — See note 5. 65 Am. St. Rep. 405, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 430. 430. 3. Service Prevented by Act of Law. — Justice u. Lairy, 19 Ind. App. 274, 65 Am. St. Rep. 405, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 430. See Warren Deposit Bank v. Barclay, (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 853. Contract to Recover Property — Property Vested in Client by Operation of Law. — Moran v. L'Etourneau, 118 Mich. 159. 4. Services Terminated by Death of Attorney. — Johnston v. Bernalillo County, (N. Mex. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 43 ; Boyd v. Daily, 85 N. Y. App. Div. 581, affirmed 176 N. Y. 556. Substitution of Attorneys — Death of First At- torney of No Effect. — Matter of Redmond, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 454, 8 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 309- Contingent Fee — No Recovery. — Badger v. Celler, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 599. Fee Paid in Advance. — Where the fee was paid in advance, the client may recover the unearned portion. McCammon v. Peck, 3 Ohio Dec. 232. 431. 2. French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 635, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 431- 3. Harris v. Root, 28 Mont. 169, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 431. 4. Stipulations for Fees in Mortgages. — Dorn v. Ross, 177 111. 225; Salomon v. Stoddard, 107 111. App. 227 ; Gallagher v. Stern, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 628; Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Greer, 19 Wash. 611. See Sun Ins. Co. v. White, 123 Cal. 196. Stipulation Against Public Policy. — Kentucky Trust Co. v. Louisville Third Nat. Bank, 106 Ky. 232. Fee Fixed in Mortgage — Mortgagor Old, Feeble, and Ignorant — Recovery on Quantum Meruit. — Turnbull v. Banks, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 508. Excessive Fee. — A grantee of real estate who takes it subject to a mortgage thereon is not required upon foreclosure to pay the fee speci- fied therein, when it exceeds that allowed by law. Grand Forks First M. E. Church v. Fad- dem, 8 N. Dak. 162. Fee No Part of Debt. — In a suit upon a usuri- ous contract, it is error to allow the plaintiff, under the stipulations of a mortgage securing the debt, an attorney's fee, as it is no part of the debt. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Shea, 6 Idaho 405. 432. 1. Agreed Fee — No Agreement — Reasonable Fee. — Kenner v. Whitelock, 152 Ind. 635. 2. Washington Statute. — Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Greer, 19 Wash. 611. 433. 1. Contract Must Be Reasonable and Fair — Alabama. — Kidd v. Williams, 132 Ala. 140; White v. Tolliver, no Ala. 300. Illinois. — Robinson v. Sharp, 201 111. 8g, 92, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 433- Indiana. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 638, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 433. Michigan. — Coveney v. Pattullo, 130 Mich. 280, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 433. Pennsylvania. — Maires's Case, 7 Pa. Dist. 297, affirmed 189 Pa. St. 99. See Filon's Es- tate, 7 Pa. Dist. 316. West Virginia. — Dorr v. Camden, 55 W. Va. 226. Contract for Additional Compensation Without Consideration. — Matter of Jackson, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 628. Additional Contract for Increased Compensation Without Consideration. — Kahle v, Plummer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 786. Additional Compensation. — A solicitor may not accept from his client, while the relation lasts, remuneration for his professional ser- vices beyond that to which he is legally en- titled. In re Haslam, (1902) 1 Ch. 765. 3. Kidd v. Williams, 132 Ala. 140. 434. 1. Contracts for Compensation Supported if Fair. — French v. Cunningham, 149 Ind. 632. 5. Per Cent, of Amount " Collected " — Costs Included. — Mcllvaine v. Steinson, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 77; Taylor v. Long Island R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 11, 28 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 118, 6 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 334. Contingent Fee. — Where an agreement with an attorney provided that he was to receive fifty per cent, of a sum " allowed, recovered, or confirmed on account of said loss and dam- age," and is silent as to incumbrances on the property, which had been taken by condemna- tion, the amount of recovery should not be reduced by a mortgage and taxes upon the property. Deering v. Schreyer, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 322. Certain Fee if Certain Amount Realized. — Where clients agree to pay their attorneys a certain fee in case they realize " not less than " a certain sum from the claim, and the clients compromise for a sum less than the amount named, the attorneys cannot recover unless there is fraud. Bittiner v. Gomprecht, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 218. 45 e 435 440 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Vol.. III. 435. 4. Attorney Must Prove His Employment. — See note 2. 437. Promise to Pay Presumed. — See notes I, 2. 439. 5. Attorney Must Prove Performance. — See note 2. 440. 6. Contingent Fees. — See note i . Personal-injury Claim on Contingent Tee — Death of Client. — Where attorneys take a per- sonal-injury case for one-half of any settle- ment, and the client dies before settlement, the attorney has no claim upon the fund paid the executors, as it is for damages to the estate, not to the decedent. Matter of Carrig, (Sur- rogate Ct.) 36 Misc. (N. Y.) 612. One-third of Adjustment. — Where a client agrees to give his attorney one-third of the sum for which the claim was adjusted, the sum for which the claim was compromised determines the attorney's fee. Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 22, 30 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 276. Percentage of Award — Interest. — Where by ■ the terms of the retainer an attorney is to receive for his services ten per cent, of what- ever award may be obtained for his client's land, he is entitled to part of the interest when the award was postponed for several years. Matter of Bassford, 172 N. Y. 488, modifying 71 N. Y. App. Div. 617. 435. 2. Collection Agency — No Recovery of Fee from Plaintiff. — Mussey v. Vanstone, 82 Mo. App. 353. 437. 1. Promise to Pay Implied from Bequest. — Taussig v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 166 Mo. 33, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437- 2. Taussig v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 166 Mo. 33, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 437. 439. 2. Performance. — Warren Deposit Bank v. Barclay, 60 S. W. Rep. 853, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1555; Asher v. Beckner, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 35; WTalbridge v. Barrett, 118 Mich. 433 ; Dennison v. Lawrence, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 99, 29 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 176. See Southern Nat. Bank v. Curtis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 911. Where attorneys agreed to collect a claim on a contingent fee, and it does not appear that they neglected the claim or that the con- tract was ended in any way, the mere fact that the client employed another attorney, who as- sisted in enforcing a judgment the first attor- neys had obtained, will not prevent collection of compensation. Raley v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 54. Settlement Without Suit. — Stoutenburgh v. Fleer, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 87 N. Y. Supp. 504. Agreement for Half of " Any Judgment " Ob- tained — Settlement by Client. — De Graff enreid v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 66 Ark. 260. Disoharge of Attorney — Bight to Compensation Acorues Immediately. — Com. v. Terry, 1 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 547. Bight to Compensation Accrues on Termination of Suit. — McCrea v. Scofield, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 10. Employment to Test Validity of Will — Decree that Client Entitled to Share on Death of Beneficiary Without Issue. — Dennison v. Lawrence, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 287. Payment of Fee in Full — Attorney Willing to Proceed — No Abandonment by Client and Recovery of Fee. — Riehl v. Levy, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 59- The Presumption is that the compensation is due when the services are performed. MacMa- hon v. Duffy, 36 Oregon 150. Attempt to Wreck Corporation. — Where it ap- pears that the services charged for were ren- dered on behalf of members of a corporation, who attempted, for fraudulent purposes, to wreck it, there can be no recovery from the cor- poration. Baxter v. Lowe, 93 Fed. Rep. 358, 35 C. C. A. 3.44. Performance Prevented by Attorney. — Where acts of the attorney, against instructions of the client, prevented performance of the con- tract, there can be no recovery for services. Richards v. Washburn, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 109, affirmed 163 N. Y. 585. 440. 1. Contingent Fees — United States. — 'Herman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 184; Muller v. Kelly, 116 Fed. Rep. 545- Arkansas. — Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81. California. — Bergen v. Frisbie, 125 Cal. 168. Iowa. — Rickel v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Iowa 148. Maryland. — Wheeler v. Harrison, 94 Md. 147. New York. — Bennett v. Donovan, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 95 ; Senver v. Serwer, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 538; Matter of Fitzsimmons, 174 N. Y. 15 ; Matter of Fitzsimmons, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 345, 12 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 250. Ohio. — Hinman v. Rogers, 4 Ohio Dec. (Re- print) 303, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 267. Pennsylvania. — Fellows v. Smith, 190 Pa. St. 301 ; Williams v. Philadelphia, 208 Pa. St. 282; Filon's Estate, 7 Pa. Dist. 316?. Texas. — Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Carlock, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 931 ; Ca- hill v. Dickson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 281. Washington. — Schultheis v. Nash, 27 Wash. 258, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 440. West Virginia. — Camden v. McCoy, 48 W. Va. 377 ; Dorr v. Camden, 55 W. Va. 226. " Contracts for contingent fees paid attor- neys were not tolerated at all at common law, but in [California'] and perhaps most of the states such contracts are allowed, if not favored. This is on the ground that otherwise a party, without the means to employ an attorney and pay his fee certain, and .having a meritorious cause of action or defense, would find himself powerless to 1 protect his rights." Newman v. Freitas, 129 Cal. 283. Validity of Contract Question for Jury. — Mul- ler v. Kelly, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 212. Burden of Proving Unreasonableness on Client. — Tabet v. Powell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 997. Assignment of Interest in Cause of Action. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bacon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 572. 456 Vol. III. ATTORNEY AMD CLIENT. 441-443 441. 8. Fees of Associate Counsel — Obligation of Client. — See note i. 443. If the Client Himself Employs Additional Counsel. — See note 2. 9. Extra Compensation — None for Incidental Services. — See note 3. 443. May Be Recovered where Services Not within Original Agreement. — See note I. 10. When Entitled to Interest. — See note 2. No Recovery on Contract Champertous and Barratrous. — Gammons v. Johnson, 76 Minn. 76. Divorce Cases — Contingent Tees Not Allowed. —Newman v. Freitas, 129 Cal. 283. Where an Attorney's Fee Is Contingent upon the Recovery of Land, if he regains it, the man- ner in which it is done and the character of the legal proceedings are immaterial. Mcin- tosh v. Bach, 110 Ky. 701. Elements of Champerty. — " An agreement that one not previously interested, and who agrees to prosecute a suit, upon recovery shall have a share of the thing recovered is not for that reason alone champertous. The bargain to be illegal must have the further element that the attorney's services shall not constitute a debt due him from the client, and that his prospective share is to be the only compensa- tion which the attorney shall receive." Had- lock v. Brooks, 178 Mass. 425. One-half of Recovery. — Under an agreement to pay attorneys one-half of what they recover, the client is liable for that portion of what he obtains, and not for one-half of the amount of the judgment. Leslie v. York, 112 Ky. 712. Percentage of Alimony. — A contract in a di- vorce suit giving the attorney a percentage of the alimony obtained is void as against public policy, being calculated to prevent reconcilia- tion. McCurdy v. Dillon, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 746. Rescission — Estoppel. — Where an attorney agrees to collect a note on a contingent fee if the note is not contested, he may promptly rescind if its validity is contested, but it is too late after trial and without notice. Lavenson v. Wise, 131 Cal. 369. Property Taken in Satisfaction — Measure of Recovery. — Where property is taken by a client in satisfaction of a claim prosecuted under an agreement for a contingent fee, the amount of the attorney's fee should be estimated by a fair valuation of the property as distinguished from the price at which it was actually taken. Barcus v. Gates, 130 Fed. Rep. 364. Indian Depredation Act March 3, 1891, — The Indian Depredation Act fixes the amount to be paid attorneys for prosecuting claims thereun- der, and an agreement for an additional con- tingent fee is void. Lynch •777- A Settlement by One Partner will not conclude the firm, if obviously unreasonable, nor if the consideration, other than money, moves pri- marily to the personal benefit of the settling partner. In either case the opposite party is chargeable with notice of want of authority, and is held to act subject to the actual consent or approval of the absent partners. Remington v. Eastern R. Co., 109 Wis. 154. 6. Notice.- — Hirsh v. Fisher, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 48, u Detroit Leg. N. 483. 7. Power to Bind Firm by Negotiable Paper.— Worster v. Forbush, 171 Mass. 423. 8. Lamb v. Wilson, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 167. 474. 2. Bights of Estate of Deceased Partner, — See Clifton v. Clark, 83 Miss. 446, 102 Am. St. Rep. 458. Death of Particular Partner Terminates Contract — Clifton v. Clark, 83 Miss. 446, 102 Am. St. Rep. 458. 468 ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 476. note i. 477. General, 479. 480. 481. note i. 483. By H. Gannaway. I. DEFINITION AND HISTORY — In the Several States of the Union. See II Powers and Duties — 2. United States Attorney-General — a. In — See note I. 3. State Attorney-General — a. Generally. — See note 3. General Statutory Authority. — See note I . b. Right to Maintain Action — (1) Generally — Test. — See When Injury Public as Well as Private. — See note 2. (2) To Enjoin or Abate a Nuisance. — See note 3. May Enjoin Erection of Purpresture. — See note 4. (3) Against Usurper of Public Office. — See note 1. 476. 1. People v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 234; People v. Kramer, (Ct. Gen. Sess.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 209. 477. 1. Duties and Powers — In General. — See U. S. v. Denison, 80 Fed. Rep. 370, 49 U. S. App. 352; U. S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. Rep. 862. 479. 3. Common-law Powers. — Atty.-Gen. v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476; People v. Kramer, (Ct. Gen. Sess.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 209. Common-law Powers as Affected by a Statute Conferring Express Authority. — State v. Seattle Gas, etc., Co., 28 Wash. 488. Substitution as to Successive Incumbents in Office. — Nance v. People, 25 Colo. 252.. 480. 1. General Statutory Authority. — For various statutory provisions see the following cases : California. — Toland v. Ventura County, 135 Cal. 412. Colorado. — Nance v. People, 25 Colo. 252. Georgia. — Ansley v. Hooper, 101 Ga. 231. Indiana. — Crawford v. State, 155 Ind. 692. Iowa. — State v. Grimmell, 116 Iowa 596. Kansas. — State v. Crilly, 69 Kan. 802. Montana. — State v. District Ct., 22 Mont. 25- New York. — People v. Nussbaum, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 245, reversing (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 1 ; People v. Manhattan Real Estate, etc., Co., 175 N. Y. 133, reversing 74 N. Y. App. Div. 535. North Carolina. — Atty.-Gen. v. Holly Shelter -R. Co., 134 N. Car. 481. Ohio. — State v. Preble County, 6 Ohio Dec. 268, 4 Ohio N. P. 177- Pennsylvania. — Cheetham v. McCormick, 178 Pa. St. 186. South Dakota. — State v. Welbes, 11 S. Dak. 86 ; State v. Marshall County, 14 S. Dak. 149. Texas. — Moore v. Bell, 95 Tex. 151. Washington. — State v. Seattle Gas, etc., Co., 28 Wash. 488. Wisconsin. — Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627. Bight to Engage in Private Practice, — There is no constitutional or statutory inhibition against the attorney-general's practicing law during his term of office. Masten v. Indiana Car, etc., Co., 25 Ind. App. 175. 481. 1. Right to Maintain Action — Criterion. — People v. Oakland Water- Front Co., 118 Cal. 234; Crawford v. State, 155 Ind. 692; Sims v. Com., 74 S. W. Rep. 1097, 2 i> Ky. L. Rep. 282 ; Atty.-Gen. v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476; People v. Murray Hill Bank, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 328; Com. v. State Treasurer, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 545, 13 Pa. Dist. 232, affirmed 209 Pa. St. 372, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 480, 481 ; State v. Marshall County, 14 S. Dak. 149; State v. Seattle Gas, etc., Co., 28 Wash. 488 ; Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627. Private Wrongs. — People v. General Electric R. Co., 172 111. 129; Atty.-Gen. v. Clark, 167 Mass. 201. 2. When Injury Public as Well as Private. — Com. v. State Treasurer, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 545, 13 Pa. Dist. 232, affirmed 209 Pa. St. 372, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 481; State v. Leischer, 117 Wis. 475- 3. May Enjoin or Abate a Nuisance. — People v. Truckee Lumber Co., 116 Cal. 397, 58 Am. St. Rep. 183; Revell v. People, 177 111. 468, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257; Atty.-Gen. v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476. May Restrain Erection of Pier — Public Waters, — Revell v. People, 177 111. 468, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257. 4. May Enjoin Erection of Purpresture., — Re- vell v. People, 177 111. 468, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257; Atty.-Gen. v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476. 482. 1. Action Against Usurper of Public Of- fice. — ■ People v. Sutter St. R. Co., 117 Cal. 604 ; State v. Seymour, 69 N. J. L. 606. The attorney-general may sue on the official bond of a public officer. State v. Welbes, 11 S. Dak. 86. The attorney-general may maintain an action against a usurper, and when he refuses to act a property owner and taxpayer may bring the action. State v. Leischer, 117 Wis. 475, 469 483-484 A TTORNE Y-GENERAL. Vol. III. 482. (4) For Protection of Public Trusts and Charities. — 6ee note 2. (5) To Restrain Unlawful Exercise of Power by Corporation — (a) Municipal Corporations. — See note 3. 483. (b) Private Corporations. — See note I. 484. c. May Enter a Nolle Prosequi. — See note 1. d. No Power to Employ Counsel. — See note 2. Contract Void. — See note 3. e. Courts Will Not Control Discretion. — See note 4. 482. 2. Protection of Public Trusts and Charities. — Atty.-Gen. v. Clark, 167 Mass. 201. 3. May Restrain Unlawful Exercise of Power by a Municipal Corporation, — State v. Leischer, 117 Wis. 475. 483. 1. Private Corporations. — People Aiken v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 8 ; Ran- chau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761- Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616. North Carolina. — Thomas v. Southern R. Co., 131 N. Car. 590. Oklahoma. — Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Zwirtz, 13 Okla. 411. Pennsylvania. — Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 13; Bullard v. Delaware, etc., R. Co;, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 583. Tennessee. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lil- lie, (Tenn. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 1055. Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 364, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 546. Wisconsin. — Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 899. 547. 2. Loss by Inevitable Accident. — A common carrier is not exempt from liability for injury because of an act of God, where he has been guilty of a previous negligence or mis- conduct which brings the property in contact with the destructive force of the actus Dei. Edson v. Pennsylvania Co., 70 111. App. 654 ; Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 162 111. 545, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332, affirming 60 111. App. 460. 3. The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375. The carrier must show that the act of God was the sole cause of the loss. Sonneborn v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 502. Though the injury results from an act of God it is incumbent on the carrier to show that it could not have been prevented by any fore- sight, pains, or care reasonably to be expected. Harzburg v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 539. 548. 1. Rule Where Passenger Retains Pos- session and Control of Property. — The Humboldt, 97 Fed. Rep. 656, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 547-552 ; Defrier v. The Nica- ragua, 81 Fed. Rep. 745; Dawley v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie, (Tenn. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 1055. The carrier is under no liability whatsoever for articles in the sole custody and possession of the passenger which do not come within the category of baggage. Levins v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 183 Mass. 175, 97 Am. St. Rep. 434. 549. 2. Passenger Retaining Custody of Bag- gage — Liable Only for Negligence. — The Hum- boldt, 97 Fed. Rep. 656, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 549; Dawley v. Wag- ner Palace Car Co., 169 Mass. 315. For a passenger's baggage lost in a sleep- ing car after the passenger had retired, the car- rier is liable where the article lost was not 478 Vol. III. BAGGAGE. 557-565 557. Assent — Burden of Proof. — See note 2. 558. When Passenger Must Have Notice. — See note I. Indorsement of Ticket. — See note 2. 559. Special Excursion Train — Seduced Bate of Fare, — See note I. Receipt for Baggage. — See note 2. 560. Eule of Construction. — See note I . 4. Contract Tickets. — See note 3. 561. VI. Beginning and Termination of Liability — 1. When Liability Begins — a. In General — Delivery. — See note i. Purchase of Ticket Unnecessary. — See note 2. Baggage Left at Depot Subject to Further Orders. — See note 4. 563. b. What Constitutes Delivery — custom. — See note 4. 564. 2. When Liability Ends — Reasonable Time for Delivery. — See note 3. 565. What Constitutes Reasonable Time. — See note I. 557. 2. Ticket Containing Restriction — Notice — Assent. — The Majestic, 166 U. S. 37s; Wiegand v. Central R. Go., 75 Fed. Rep. 370 ; The New England, no Fed. Rep. 415; Wil- liams v. Central R. Co., 93 N. Y. App. Div. 582; Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761. See also Engberman v. North German Lloyd Steamship Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 201. If the limitation is brought to the knowl- edge of the passenger, he is bound by it, whether he assents or not. Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 13. It must be shown that the passenger read a notice printed on the back of a ticket or that his attention was directly called to it, in order to relieve the carrier from liability. Aiken v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 8. Where the passenger is not furnished with a ticket containing the limitation and has had no opportunity of reading it, he is not bound by its terms. Wamsley v. Atlas Steamship Co., 50 N. Y. App. Div. 199. Notice of a provision of a ticket limiting the liability of the carrier is chargeable to the passenger where he had possession of the ticket a week before delivering the baggage to the carrier. The Kensington, 88 Fed. Rep. 331. Passenger Held Bound by Notice on Ticket. — Aiken v. Wabash R. Co., 80 Mo. App. 8. 558. 1. Passenger Must Assent Before Cars Start. — See Saunders v. Southern R. Co., (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 15. He must have such knowledge at the time he pays for his ticket. Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761. The Presumption is that a notice prominently printed on the face of the ticket, limiting the liability of the carrier, has been read by the passenger. Jacobs v. Cent. R. Co., 208 Pa. St. 535- 2. Saunders v. Southern R. Co., (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 15, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 558. See also The Minne- tonka, 132 Fed. Rep. 52. 559. 1. Notice in Advertisement of Special Excursion Train. — See Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. x 13. 2, Acceptance of Receipt for Baggage — Ques- tion for Jury. — Merrill v. Pacific Transfer Co., 131 Cal. 582; Malone v. Metropolitan Express Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 1039. See also Ranchau v. Rutland R. Co., 71 Vt. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 761. 560. I. See Upperton v. Union Castle Mail Steamship Co., 89 L. T. N. S. 289. 3. Passenger Contract Tickets. — Jacobs v. Central R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 13, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 560. 561. 1. Liability Begins with Delivery. — But see Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 899, where it is held that the owner of baggage about to be for- warded cannot impose on a carrier the liability as such by a delivery of his baggage prior to such time as may be reasonably necessary for obtaining a ticket, checking the baggage, etc. A rule of a carrier prohibiting the checking of baggage until thirty minutes before train time is not, as a matter of law, an unreason- able limitation. Proof of Delivery must be made in order to make the carrier liable. Lustig v. International Nav. Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 802. 2. Ticket Unnecessary — Good Faith. — Coffee v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 76 Miss. 569, 71 Am. St. Rep. 535. But a carrier assumes no liability to a trav- eler who, by mistake, delivers his baggage to it for transportation but who never expected to become a passenger or to pay for the car- riage, except for wilful or intentional injury to the baggage. Beers v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 67 Conn. 417, 52 Am. St. Rep. 293. 4. Baggage Brought to Station Prematurely. — Murray v. International Steamship Co., 170 Mass. 166, 64 Am. St. Rep. 290. See also Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 899. 563. 4. See McKibbin v. Great Northern R. Co., 78 Minn. 232. 564. 3. General Rule as to Termination oi Liability. — Wiegand v. Central R. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 370 ; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 58 Am. St. Rep. in; Pennsyl- vania Co. v. Liveright, 14 Ind. App. 518; In- diana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569 ; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338; Marshall v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co., 126 Mich. 45 ; Felton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 332 ; Blackmore v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 162 Mo. 455 ; Graves v. Fitchburg R. Co., 29 N. Y. App. Div. 591 ; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Terrell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 43°. 565. 1. What Constitutes Reasonable Time. 479 366-579 BAGGAGE. Vol. III. 566. Baggage Remaining in Depot by Carrier's Fault. — See note I. 567. Passenger's Duty. — See notes 2, 3. 570. 3. Liability as Warehouseman — when storage charged. — See note I. Want of Ordinary Care — Burden of Proof. — See note 3. 571. Duty as to Watchman, Fire-proof Booms, and the Like. — See note I. It Is a Condition Precedent. — See note 4. 572. VII. Connecting Lines and Through Tickets— 1. Liability Gen- erally — But Where the Connecting lines Are Distinct. — See note I. 574. 2. Liability of Initial Carrier — a. View that Initial Carrier IS LIABLE THROUGHOUT THE JOURNEY — Where Baggage Checked Through under Through Ticket. — See note I. 575. Through Tickets with Separate Coupons — Release of Connecting Carrier. — See note 3. 576. b. View that Initial Carrier Is Liable Only for Losses on Its Own Line. — See note 1. Liability Extended by Contract. — See note 3. 577. c. Conditions on Tickets Limiting Liability. — See note i. 579. ' 4. Liability of Last Carrier. — See note 4. Where Receipt by Last Carrier Shown, It Must Prove Condition When Received. — See note 5. — Felton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.-, 86 Mo. App. 332 ; Graves v. Fitchburg R. Co., 29 N. X* App. Div. 591. See also Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 58 Am. St. Rep. in; Pennsylvania Co. v. Liveright, 14 Ind. App. 518; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338. In Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 58 Am. St. Rep. 111, it was held that the plaintiff had a reasonable time in which he might, with the use of diligence, have re- moved his baggage before it was destroyed by fire, where he arrived at the station with the baggage at eleven o'clock at night, and the fire occurred two hours later, and no excuse was given for his failure to remove the baggage, ex- cept the lateness of the hour and the fact that no vehicles were that night at the station, which was a mile from the nearest town. Such facts merely show that it was inconvenient to re- move the baggage. It Is a Question for the Court as to what is a reasonable time when the facts are undisputed. Felton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 332- 566. 1. When Carrier in Fault. — Felton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. App. 332. 567. 2. Passenger's Duty to Call for and Re- move His Baggage. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McGahey, 63 Ark. 344, 58 Am. St. Rep. 1 1 1 ; Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569 ; Hurwitz v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 814; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Terrell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 430. 3. What Is Reasonable Time. — In Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338, it was held that a passenger should have called for his baggage on the evening of its arrival or during the business hours of the succeeding day. 570. 1. Storing Baggage at Owner's Expense. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338. S. Want of Ordinary Care — Burden of Proof. — Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569 ; Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 899. 571. 1. Precautions Carrier Should Take. — It is not necessary to keep a night watchman about a baggage room, when it appears that no. baggage is delivered at the station from the night trains. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Zilly, 20 Ind. App. 569. 4. Baggage Must First Be Safely Stored. — Kan- sas City, etc., R. Co. v. Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338. 572. 1. Connecting Lines Distinct and Inde- pendent. — Texas, etc., R. Co. u. Berry, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 3. 574. 1. Carrier May Contract for Through Liability. — Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461. 575. 3. See Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 461. 576. 1. Initial Carrier Not Generally Liable for Loss on Connecting Line. — Talcott v. Wa- bash R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.) 492; Talcott v. Wabash R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 443. See also Moore v. New York, etc., R. Co., 173 Mass. 335, 73 Am. St. Rep. 298. In Oklahoma, under Wilson's Rev. & Annot. Stat., § 724, the carrier's liability is limited to its own line. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Zwirtz, 13 Okla. 411. 3. Liability over Whole Route by Special Con- tract. — See Lessard v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 69 N. H. 648. 577. 1. Conditions on Tickets. — See Askew v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 846. A valid limitation as to the amount of lia- bility contained in a ticket limits the liability of the connecting carriers to the same extent as the initial carrier. Aiken v. Wabash R. Co.. 80 Mo. App. 8. 579. 4. See Fox v. Wabash R. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 370. 5. Moore v. New York, etc., R. Co., 173 Mass. 335, 73 Am. St. Rep. 298 ; Fox v. Wa- bash R. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 370 ; Askew v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 846. 480 Vol. III. BA GGA GE — BAG OF OA TS. 579-586 579. Failure to Deliver Without Proof of Receipt Not Sufficient. — See note 6. 580. VIII. Baggage Checks, Their Nature and Effect — presumptions Arising from Possession of Check. — See note 3. 581. IX. Transfer Companies. — See note 6. 583. X. Sleeping-car' Companies. — See note i. XI. Evidence — 1. Admissibility in Certain Particulars — Party May Testify as to Contents of Trunk. — See notes 2, 4, 583. Admissions of Agents of Carrier. — See note I. 584. XII. Measure of Damages. — See note 5. 585. See notes 1, 2, 3. 586. [BAG OF OATS. — See note 6.] 579. 6. Romero v. McKernan, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 365. 580. 8. Check Is Prima Facie Evidence of Receipt and Nondelivery. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Steear, 53 Neb. 95, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 580. 581. 6. Limiting Liability. — See Merrill v. Pacific Transfer Co., 131 Cal. 582. Where a transfer company took the check of a passenger and placed it on the strap with the duplicate check while the trunk was in the baggage car of the railroad company, the rail- road company thereupon became charged with the safety of the trunk and liable to the pas- senger for loss occurring while it was in the possession of the railroad ; the railroad be- came the transfer company's bailee in respect to the trunk. Springer v. Westcott, 166 N. Y. 117. 582. 1. Sleeping-car Companies — Alabama. . — Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 74 Am. St. Rep. 53. Georgia. — Kates v. Pullman's Palace Car , Co., 95 Ga. 810 ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hall, 106 Ga. 765, 71 Am. St. Rep. 293. Illinois. — McMurray v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 86 111. App. 619. Indiana. — Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271. Kentucky. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hun- ter, 107 Ky. 519. Missouri. — Morrow v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 98 Mo. App. 351. Ohio. — Falls River, etc., Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 85. Texas. — Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Hatch, • 30 Tex. Civ. App. 303; Belden v. Pullman Pal- ace Car Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 22. See also Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Arents, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 71. And see generally the title Sleeping-car Companies. 1 Supp. E. of L.— 31 481 2. A person is presumed to know the value of his own belongings and may testify thereto. Hebard v. Riegel, 67 111. App. 584. 4. The plaintiff cannot testify as to his or her opinion as to the amount of damage sus- tained by reason of an injury to his or her baggage. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, SS Kan. 83. 583. 1. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkin- son, 55 Kan. 83. 584. 5. Actual Value Alone Recoverable. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 364, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 584; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Fales, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 234. Partial Injury. — Where a violin was broken it was held that the measure of damages em- braced the expense of restoring the property to soundness, compensation for its loss during the period of disability, and the difference be- tween its value before injury and after being repaired. Schalscha v. Third Ave. R. Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 141. 585. 1. Cooney v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 121 Ala. 368; Simpson v. New York, etc., R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 16 Misc. (N. YO.613. See also Werner v. Evans, 94 111. App. 328. 2. Expenses of Searching Not Recoverable. — But see Wiegand -t>. Central R. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 370. 3. Delay. — Living expenses for one week were allowed where the owner had spent a much longer time in waiting at a point en route for lost baggage. Atwood v. Mohler, 108 111. App. 416. 586. 6. Bag of Oats. — In an action on a contract for the price of oats sold and delivered by the bag it was held that evidence is ad- missible of a trade usage that the term bag of oats meant sixty-four pounds of oats not in- cluding the bag, or two bushels of thirty-two pounds each. Eldridge v. McDermott, 178 Mass. 256. BAIL (IN CIVIL CASES). By Theodor Megaarden. 595. III. Appearance Bail — 5. Obligation of Defendant to Enter Special Bail — Breach of Obligation. — See note 3. 598. IV. Bail to the Action — Statutory Special Bail — 1. Sight to Hold to Bail — b. In What Cases. — See note 7. 600. c. Prerequisites — (2) A Legal Arrest — ($) Giving Bond When ArreBt Is Illegal — Sufficiency of Affidavit. — See note I . 606. 4. Amount for Which Bail Undertake — Reduction of Amount. — See note 1. 608. 5. Putting in and Perfecting Bail — e. Rendering the Bail ABSOLUTE — (4) Justification by Bail. — See note 1. 609. 6. The Recognizance or Bail Bond — b. The Bail Bond — (2) The Obligors. — See note 6. 610. (5) The Condition — (a) In General. — See note 7. 611. (b) Recitals in Condition — Recital of Nature of Action. — See note 4. 613. (c) The Conditions Proper note 5. 615. What Cases. — See note 6. Terms of the Condition — At Common Law. — See 7. Bights and Liabilities of Bail — a. Liabilities of Bail — (2) In 595. 3. Relief Against Obligation to Enter Special Bail. — Where it appeared that the prin- cipal was in custody and that the defendant had lost nothing by the failure to put in special bail, the bail was discharged without a formal surrender of the principal. Loewenthal v. Wagner, 69 N. J. L. 129. 598. 7. Right to Hold to Bail. — Under the Georgia Act of 1879 (3 Code Ga. 1895, § 34200) which provides that the plaintiff in an action to recover personal property must make affidavit " that the property is in the possession, custody, or control of the defend- ant," it has been held that where a defend- ant, imprisoned under an action of trover where bail was required, petitioned the judge of the court in which the suit was pending for his discharge, and it satisfactorily appeared that he was unable to produce the property or to give security for the eventual condemnation money, there was no error in discharging the defend- ant on his own recognizance, and awarding the cost of the proceeding against the plaintiff. Garrett v. Underwood, 102 Ga. 558. See also Shinholser v. Jordan, 115 Ga. 462. Special Bail Required Before Appearing or Pleading. — The Connecticut statute' (Gen. Stat. Conn., § 957) prescribing that no defendant in a civil action while at large on bail given to the officer shall " be admitted to appear and plead or defend any such action " until he has given special bail, has been held to apply to an appearance for the purpose of pleading in abate- ment. Bergkofski v. Ruzofski, 74 Conn. 204. 600. 1. Affidavit by One Plaintiff in Behalf of All. — Under a statute providing that the af- fidavit shall be made by the " plaintiff or some person in his behalf," it has been held that an gffi^aylt made by one of th,e pjaintiffs is good if it purports to be made on behalf of the plaintiffs in the action. Gorgorian v. Prood, 167 Mass. 31. 606. 1. Reduction of Excessive Bail. — Sibley v. Smith, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 514. 60S. 1. Justification. — Ludwick v. Perkins, . (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 66. 609. 6. Omission of Name of Principal in One Clause. — Where the name of the defendant as principal appeared in the different recitals, but was omitted in the statement of the condition, it was held that, since the instrument itself furnished the means of supplying the missing word with absolute certainty, the bond was valid. Reeg v. Adams, 113 Wis. 175. 610. 7. Construction of Condition. — The court cannot, by construction, give to the con- dition a broader scope than is clearly expressed in the bond. Bristol v. Graff, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 426, affirmed without opinion 179 N. Y. 551. 611. 4. Misrecital of Nature of Action.— By a clerical mistake a bond recited that the principal was in custody by virtue of a capias ad respondendum when it should have read capias ad satisfaciendum, but the mistake was promptly corrected, by the consent of all the parties interested, who treated the bond as a valid bond. It was held that the original error did not invalidate the bond. In re Friedrich, 113 Mich. 468. 612. 5. Condition Merely to Abide Order of Court. — Where a bond given in a replevin suit to secure the discharge of the defendant from arrest was conditioned that he should abide the order of the court in the action, it was held that the bail were not liable for the value of the property in controversy and the costs of the suit, Eddinga v. Boner, 1 Indian Ter. 173. 615, 6, Liftbj^T 9f SJfferen^ Set- jf £$ | B Vol. III. BAIL {IN CIVIL CASES). 616-644 616. (3) Extent of Liability — Interest on Judgment Against Principal. — See note 1. 633. 6. Fixing Bail — (3) Sheriff's Return Conclusive upon Bail. — See note 2. 684. c. Rights OF Bail — (5) Right to Arrest Principal. — See note 3. 636. 8. Discharge or Exoneration of Bail — b. By Performance of the CONDITIONS — (2) What Constitutes Performance — (a) In General. — See note 9. 638. (0) Surrender of Principal. — See note 4. 633. c. Without Performance — (3) By Act of Law — (a) Discbarge of Principal. — See note 5. 633. Under Bankruptcy or Insolvency Laws. — See note 4. 634. See note 1. 635. (4) By Act of the Obligee — Laches. — See note 1. 639. 9. Surrender of Principal — a. By Whom Made — (i) Right of Bail to Surrender Principal — Ac Common Law. — ■ See note 3. 643. c. Time of Surrender — (2) In the United States — surrender Before Execution. — See note 4. 644. d. Mode of Surrender. — See notes 1, 2. Same Cause. — When there are different sets of bail in the different stages of the same cause, the primary liability rests upon the last set. Cuiliford v. Walser, 158 N. Y. 65, 70 Am. St. Rep. 437, reversing 3 N. Y. App. Div. 266. 616. 1. Byron v. Flagg, 18 N. Bruns. 396; Keith v. Coates, 17 Can. L. T. 33. 623. 2. Beturn of Sheriff Conclusive in Action Against Bail. — Matter v. Pitkin, 72 Vt. 258, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 623. 624. 3. An Order Discharging the Principal from Arrest extinguishes the right of the bail to . take him into actual custody. People v. Hathaway, 206 111. 42, affirming 102 111. App. 628. 626. 9. Sufficiency of Appearance. — When the condition of a common-law bond for the appearance of a judgment debtor in supple- mentary proceedings was to the effect that the defendant would appear before the county judge at a specified day and hour to answer as a witness, etc., and he did appear at that time, and appeared by attorney on an adjourned day, but absconded before the day set for a further hearing, it was held that there had been no breach of the condition, the defendant not having assented to either adjournment. Straw v. Kromer, 114 Wis. 91. 628. 4. Effect of Surrender — Discharges Bail. — People v. Hathaway, 206 111. 42, affirming 102 111. App. 628. 632. 5. Discharge of Principal Releases Bail. — People v. Hathaway, 206 111. 42, affirming 102 111. App. 628 (vacation of order of arrest) ; McClary Mfg. Co. v. Morin, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 423. Illegal Discharge from Arrest has been held not to release the bail. Sowle Mfg. Co. v. Ber- nard, 100 Ky. 658. 633. 4. Principal's Discharge in Bankruptcy Beleases Bail. — Bryant u. Kinyon, 127 Mich. '52- 634. 1. Commencement of Insolvency Proceed- ings. — Although a principal in a poor debtor's recognizance has commenced insolvency pro- ceedings before the day appointed for the ex- amination, he is no^ thereby excused, from appearing, and if he defaults the surety on the recognizance is liable notwithstanding the fact that the principal obtains a discharge in the insolvency proceedings. Demelman v. Hunt, 168 Mass. 102. Proof of Claim in Insolvency by Plaintiff. — The fact that the plaintiff had proved a claim in insolvency upon a judgment against a judg- ment debtor is not a bar to a suit against a surety on a recognizance to appear for exam- ination as a poor debtor, entered into by the same debtor when execution issued against him. Harris v. Hayes, 171 Mass. 275. 635. 1. Entry of Writ After Beturn Day. — It has been held that a surety on a poor debtor's recognizance is not relieved from lia- bility on the bond for the reason that the orig- inal writ was not entered on the return day, but was filed two days thereafter by permission of the court. Gorgorian v. Prood, 167 Mass. 31. 639. 3. Bight of Bail to Surrender — Com- mon Law. — See People v. Hathaway, 206 111. 42, affirming 102 111. App. 628. 642. 4. Surrender After Beturn Day of Fieri Facias. — Under the Michigan statute it has been held that the principal may be surrendered at any time, either before or after the return of the fieri facias. Umphrey v. Emery, 121 Mich. 184. 644. 1. Mode of Surrender. — In 'New York the mode of surrender is prescribed by stat- ute, and the statutory mode must be pursued. Stransky v. Harris, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 691, reversing (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 15. Producing Capias of Bail Piece. — Under the Michigan statute providing that there shall be produced to the officer authorized to accept the surrender of the principal by his bail two copies of the bail piece, it has been held that it is sufficient to produce copies which are sworn to by one of the signers of the bail piece to be true copies of the original ; the copies need not be certified. Morgan v. Jones, 117 Mich. 59. 2. Instance of Insufficient Surrender. — Where the condition of a bond for the appearance of debtors who bad. beert arrested or( a 03. sa. wag m 645 659 BAIL— BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. Vol. III. 645. Where Principal Ib Imprisoned for a Crime. — See note I . 646. V. Deposit of Money in Lieu of Bail — Repayment of Money Depotited by Third Person. — See note 5. 649. VIII. Instruments Executed in Lieu of Bail Bonds. — See note 10. that if they failed in obtaining their discharge as insolvent debtors they would surrender them- selves to the jail of the county, it was held that they did not comply with the condition when, instead of surrendering themselves to the county jail, they appeared at the bar of the court and through their counsel made ap- plication for an order to commit them, which order the court refused to make. Stout v. Quinn, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 179. 645. 1. Habeas Corpus Not Always Essential. — The courts may, under some circumstances, dispense with a formal surrender through habeas corpus. Loewenthal v. Wagner, 69 N. j. L. 129. 646. 5. Ownership of Money Deposited. — Money deposited in lieu of bail in accordance with Code Civ. Pro. N. Y., § 586, with a direction for its return to a specified third person, is deemed to be the property of such third person unless it is shown that it was the property of the defendant which should be ap- plied to the payment of his debts, and that the direction was given for the purpose of hinder- ing, delaying, or defrauding his creditors. Finelite v. Sonberg, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 455. But money deposited under the above-cited sec- tion by a third person cannot be returned to him before the determination of the proceed- ings in which the bail was given. Alexander v. Creamer, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 211. 649. 10. Instruments in Lieu of Bail Bonds. — Straw v. Kremer, 114 Wis. 91. 653. 654. 655. 657. See note 658. 659. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. (IN CRIMINAL CASES.) By J. M. Greenfield. 1. Definitions. — See note i. II. Power to Take Bail — 1. In General. — See note 3. 2. Courts of Record — a. In General. — See note 5. b. Effect of Statutory and Constitutional Provisions. :. 3. Justices of the Peace. — See note 3. Authority Strictly Construed. — See note 2. 4. Clerks of Court — Delegation of Power. — See note i. 653. 1. Matter of Nottingham, (1897) 2 Q. B. 510; State v. Crosby, 114 Ala. 11, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 653 ; People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230 ; State v. Davis, 27 Utah 368 ; State v. Dwyer, 70 Vt. 96. 654. 3. Presumption of Jurisdiction. — See State v. Eyermann, 172 Mo. 294; State v. Abel, 170 Mo. 59. Prior to Arrest a court has no authority to take a recognizance for the release of the ac- cused. Clute v. Ionia Circuit Judge, 131 Mich. 203. Power to Require New Recognizance. — Com. v. Abbott, 168 Mass. 471. United States Court After Cause Remanded to State Courts. — After an appeal taken from a United States Circuit Court has been dismissed and the prisoner remanded to the state officers, (he United States court has no power to grant bail. In re Bissert, 113 Fed. Rep. 12. United States Circuit Court of Appeals Has Power. — McKnight v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 45i. 655. 5. Authority to Take Bail in Vacation. — See State v, Vette, 179 Mo. 408. After Adjournment for the Day the judge of the court has authority to take a recognizance in a pending prosecution. State v. Eyermann, 172 Mo. 294. 657. 1. Constitutional Provision in Case Proof Evident or Presumption Great. — See State v. Farris, 51 S. Car. 176. 3. Justice of the Peace. — Crumpecker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 564. In New York a justice of the peace has no authority to grant bail to a person accused of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than five years. Sutherland v. St. Law- rence County, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 38. 658. 2. Huston v. People, 12 Colo. App. 271 ; Com. v. Phillips, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 118; State v. Bartlett, 70 Minn. 199. See also State v. Lagoni, 30 Mont. 472. Statutory Authority of Municipal Officer to Be Strictly Followed. — Howlett v. Turner, 93 Mo. App. 20; Scio v. Hollis, 10 Ohio Dec. 99. Bail Taken by One Justice where the statute requires two is void. People v. Cook, 68 111. App. 202. 659. t. Under the Missouri Statute authoriz- 484 Vpl. III. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. 6G0-6GS 660. 5. Sheriffs — b. In the United States. — See note 5. 661. See note 2. 663. 6. Commissioners — a. United States Commissioners. — See note 3. 664. III. Right to Give Bail — 1. At Common Law — Matter of judicial Discretion. — See note 3. 665. 2. Under State Constitutions — Bail a Matter of Bight — Constitutional Pro- visions. — See notes 2, 3. 667. IV. Considerations Governing the Granting of Bail — 1. Con- siderations Generally Applicable — b. Gravity of the Offense — Homicide. — ■ See note 4. 668. c. Strength of the ' Evidence — (2) When Proof Is Evident or Presumption Strong. — See notes 3, 4. ing the clerk to fix the amount of the bail, if the judge is out of the county, it must appear by indorsement that bail fixed by the clerk was ordered by the judge or that the judge was absent. State v. Woodward, 159 Mo. 680; State v. Pratt, 148 Mo. 402. 660. 5. Of Statutory Origin. — State v. Fra- ser, 165 Mo. 242. 661. 2. Approving Bail After Amount In- dorsed on Writ. — Havis v. State, 62 Ark. 500 ; Dunlap v. State, 66 Ark. 105; State v. Pratt, 148 Mo. 402; State v. Woodward, 159 Mo. 680; State v. Fraser, 165 Mo. 242. See Cox v. State, 5 Kan. App. 539. The Sheriff of a County from Which the Venue Has Been Moved has no authority to take bail. Harbolt v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 129. Where Amount Not Indorsed on Process. — State v. Austin, 69 Mo. App. 377, affirmed 141 Mo. 481. 662. 3. United States Commissioners. — U.S. u. Dunbar, (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 151. 664. 3. Bail a Matter of Discretion. — Jerna- gin v. State, 118 Ga. 307. 665. 2. Constitutional Provisions. — See Ex p. Gainey, 42 Fla. 607; Ex p. Majors, (Miss. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 151 ; State v. Hartzell, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 745. Refusal of Bail by Police Officer Unauthorized. — Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212. 3. Bail a Matter of Right. — Rigdon v. State, 41 Fla. 308; Markey v. Griffin, 109 111. App. 212; State v. Start, (Kan. App: 1898) 54 Pac, Rep. 22; State v. Madison County Ct., 136 Mo. 323; States. Collins, 10 N. Dak. 464; Martin v. State, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 621 ; Ex p. Newman, 38 Tex. Crim. 164; Ex p. Wright, 39 Tex. Crim. 193; Ex p. Darter, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 770. Rape Bailable. — Ex p. Arthur, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 365. Constitutional Provisions Not Prohibitive. — In State v. Collins, 10 N. Dak. 464, the court expressed an opinion that a constitutional pro- vision allowing bail in capital cases, except where the proof of guilt is evident or the pre- sumption great, did not prohibit the granting of bail where the proof is evident or the pre- sumption great. 667, 4. Homicide — Bill Accepted unless Rilling Premeditated and Deliberate. — State v. Start, (Kan. App. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 22; State v. Bell, (Kan. App. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 504; State v. Bartlett, 70 Minn. 199 ; Ex p. Patter- son, (Miss. 1897) 22 So. Rep. 186; Ex p. Jack, (Miss. 1897) 22 So. Rep. 188; Ex. p. Majors, (Miss. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 151 ; State v. Collins, 10 N. Dak. 464; State v. Hartzell, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 745 ; Ex p. Cosby, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 587; Ex p. Locklin, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 585; Ex p. Smith, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 917. Murder in Second Degree Bailable. — See Ex p. Moore, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 620. Manslaughter Bailable. — Territory v. Cooper, 11 Okla. 699. Rape is not bailable in Texas when the proof shows that the crime was committed. Ex p. Cotton, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 632. Granting Bail in Capital Cases Discretionary. — Jernagin v. State, 118 Ga. 307. Agreement with State's Attorney to Turn State's Evidence. — ■ One guilty of a capital offense is not entitled to bail because he turns state's evidence, and an agreement between the ac- cused and the state's attorney that he is to be admitted to bail upon his giving state's evi- dence is ultra vires and cannot be enforced. Ex p. Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Crim. 278. The Burden of Proof is on the accused on an application for bail. Rigdon o. State, 41 Fla. 308 ; Brown v. State, 147 Ind. 28. Contra, Ex p. Newman, 38 Tex. Crim. 164. It Will Be Presumed on Appeal, where bail has been refused, that the proof is evident and the presumption great. State u. Madison County Ct., 136 Mo. 323. 668. 3. Rule for Determining " When Prooi Is Evident or Presumption Great." — See State v. Start, (Kan. App. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 22; State v. Bell, (Kan. App. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 504; State v. Collins, 10 N. Dak. 464 ; State v. Hartzell, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 745 ; Ex p. Wright, 39 Tex. Crim. 193; Ex p. Cotton, (Tex. Crim. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 632; Ex p. Cosby, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 587. 4, Rule Criticised. — See Ex p. Majors, (Miss. *9°3) 34 So. Rep. 151 ; Ex p. Locklin, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 585. " Probability " of Guilt. — Where the proof goes no further than to establish a " probabil- ity " of guilt, bail should not be denied. Ex p. Gainey, 42 Fla. 607. Evidence Examined and Accused Held En- titled to Bail. — See Ex p. Patterson, (Miss 1897) 22 So. Rep. 186; Ex p. Jack, (Miss. 1897) 22 So. Rep. 188. 485 671 681 BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. Vol. III. 671. e. Stage of the Proceeding when Application Made — (3) After Indictment — (a) Rule at Common Law. — See note 3. (b) Rule in the United States. — See note 5. See note I. Effect of Presumption Raised by Indictment. — See notes 2, 3. See note 1. (4) After Conviction ■ — • Power of Court to Bail. — See note 3. When Bail Allowable After Conviction — In the United States. — See note 5- See note 1. 2. Extraordinary Considerations Controlling Particular Cases — a. Illness of the Prisoner. — See note 4. Illness Must Be Serious. — See note 5- See note i. c. Extradition — Ban Not Allowable. — See note i. V. Amount or Bail — 1. In General. — See notes 3, 4. 2. Excessive Bail. — ■ See notes 1, 2. 673. 673. 675. 676. 677. 678. 680. 681. 671. S. After Indictment — Rule at Common Law. — At common law, bail might, in proper cases, be granted at any stage of the case in the court's sound discretion, either before or after indictment. Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 671. 5. Rule in America — Court May Examine Evi- dence Before Brand Jury. — See Markey v. Grif- fin, 109 111. App. 212. 672. 1. Presumption of Guilt Raised by Indictment. — State v. Madison County Ct., 136 Mo. 323. 2. Indictment Justifying Denial of Hearing. — Martin v. State, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 621. 3. Hearing Allowed in Discretion of Court. — Martin v. State, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 621. 673. 1. Burden upon Applicant to Produce Exculpatory Evidence. — State v. Madison County Ct., 136 Mo. 323. 3. After Conviction — Power of Court to Bail. — State ex rel. Collette, 106 La. 221 ; State v. Murphy, 23 Nev. 390 ; Territory v. Cooper, 1 1 Okla. 699; Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. ok Law (2d ed.) 673. In Louisiana. — State v. Williams, no La. 957. Federal Courts. — McKnight v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 451. 675. 5. Bail Allowed with Caution After Conviction of Felony. — Ex p. Williams, 114 Ala. 29 ; Territory v. Cooper, 1 1 Okla. 699 ; Ex p. Hill, si W. Va. 536, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 675. See also Mat- ter of Raidler, 4 Okla. 417. Compare McKnight v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 451. In Louisiana a defendant is not entitled to bail after conviction of a felony punishable by death or imprisonment at hard labor and before sentence is pronounced. If a sentence other than death or imprisonment at hard labor has been pronounced, the accused is entitled to bail. State ex rel. Collette, 106 La. 221. 676. 1. Circumstances Warranting Bail After Conviction. — See Ex p. Hill, 5 1 W. Va. 536- 677. 4. Illness of Prisoner — Grounds for Bail. — 7n re Ward, 127 Cal. 489 ; Ex p. Wheeler, (Miss. 1898) 24 So. Rep. 261 ; Ex p. Tittle, 37 Tex. Crim. 597; Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 677. 486 5. Illness Must Threaten Life or Permanent Injury to Health. — Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536. 678. 1. Bail Should Be Granted Where Illness Likely to Terminate Fatally. — Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 677 [678]. 6§0. 1. Extradition. — Matter of Foye, 21 Wash. 250. 3. Ex p. Arthur, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 365. 4. Question for Judicial Decision. — Ex p. Tit- tle, 37 Tex. Crim. 597 ; Ex p. Arthur, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 365; Hernandez v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 549. Bail in Less than the Statutory Amount has been held to defeat the jurisdiction of the court on appeal. Xydias v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 761. 681. 1. Not Excessive — Examples. — A bond not exceeding in amount the fine with which the offense charged is punishable has been held not to be excessive. Ex p. Smith, 79 Miss. 373. Bail in the sum of six hundred dollars for a defendant charged with assault with intent to commit rape is not excessive. Ex p. Scott, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 568. A bond of two hundred and fifty dollars on a charge of burglary is not excessive, but on the contrary quite small. Ex p. Bishop, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 308. Where the punishment prescribed is a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, a bond of one hundred and fifty dollars would ordinarily not be excessive. Ex p. Ferrell, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 328. Example of Excessive Bail. — Where the com- plaint charged the defendant with the larceny of eighteen cattle worth thirty dollars each, bail in the sum of five thousand dollars was held to be excessive. Ex p. Douglas, 25 Nev. 425- The Amount of Bail May Bo Increased when, in the judgment of the court, it is necessary. State v. Eyermann, 172 Mo. 294. But the Texas stat- ute does not authorize a District Court to in- crease the amount of bail after indictment. Jenkins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 224. 2. Review by Higher Court. — See Ex p. Bishop, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 308. Vol. III. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. 681-689 681. 3. Reduction of Amount. — See note 3. 682. VI. MONEY IN LlEU OF BAIL — Authority to Take Is Statutory. — See notes 1, 2. How Regarded. — See note 3. Title to Deposit. — See note 5. 683. VII. Number and Qualification of Sureties — Qualification of sure- ties — See note 4. 684. VIII. Justification of Sureties. — See note 2. 686. X. The Undertaking — 1. Definitions — a Recognizance. — See note 3. 687. A Bail Bond. — See note i. A Recognizance Differs from a Bail Bond. — See note 2. 688. A Recognizance, or Bail Bond, Dates. — See note I. 2. Essentials to Validity — a. Authority and Process under Which Taken. — See note 2. 689. See note 1. ' 681. 3. Reduotion on Habeas Corpus. — Ex p. Douglas, 25 Nev. 425 ; Sancedo v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 546 ; Hernan- dez v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. S49 ; Ex p. Choynski, 42 Tex. Crim. 586. 682. 1. Honey as Bail. — Savannah v. Kas- sell, 1 1 5 Ga. 310; State v. Owens, 112 Iowa 403; State v. Anderson, 119 Iowa 711; Arn- sparger v. Norman, 101 Ky. 208 ; Com. v. Leech, 103 Ky. 389; State v. Ross, 100 Tenn. 303- 2. Appelgate v. Young, 62 Kan. 100, revers- ing 9 Kan. App. 493 ; Brusoe v. The Retreat, 25 Ohio Or. Ct. 193. 3. Deposit Released by Subsequent Bond. — State v. Anderson, 119 Iowa 711, holding fur- ther that after an unauthorized deposit by a third person has been restored, it cannot be subsequently recovered by the state. Interest Is Not Payable until after the final disposition of the case, and demand. Savan- nah v. Kassell, 115 Ga. 310. 6. Title to Deposit in Accused. — State v. Owens, 112 Iowa 403; State v. Ross, 100 Tenn. 303. See also Com. v. Leech, 103 Ky. 389; People v. Gould, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 524, in which case it was held that money deposited by a third person is regarded as belonging to the accused so far as the pending proceeding is concerned, but not for any other purpose. A Deposit Made on Appeal by One Convicted of Abandonment was ordered to be applied to the year's support of the wife, in an amount which had been adjudged. People v. Burke, (Ct. Gen. Sess.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 566. Discharge of Accused on Deposit by Third Per- son Unlawful. — State v. Anderson, 119 Iowa 711. Money Unlawfully Taken Recoverable. — Bru- soe v. The Retreat, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 193. 683. 4. Qualifications of Bail — At Common Law. — People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230. The Illinois Statute requires each surety to be worth the amount of bail expressed in the recognizance over and above the amount ex- empt from execution, unless more than two sureties are accepted, in which case they may justify severally in smaller amounts if the aggregate qualification be equivalent to two suf- ficient bails. People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230. 684. 2. Justification Discretionary with Officer. — See Pierce v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 343. 686. 3. People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230-; People v. Cook, 68 111. App. 202; State v. Taylor, 136 Mo. 462; Maxey v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 556. Nature of Recognizance. — See State v. Lam- bert, 44 W. Va. 308. The Object of a Recognizance. — State v. Mar- tin, 49 La. Ann. 752. A Recognizance Is " Process " within Rev. Stat. U. S., § 602, providing for- the continuance of all process when the office of a judge of any District Court is vacant. U. S. v. Murphy, 82 Fed. Rep. 898. 687. 1. Matter of Nottingham, (1897) 2 Q. B. 510; People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230. A Bail Bond Is a Contract entered into between the state, by its governor on the one part, and the named principal and sureties on the other. Adams v. Candler, 114 Ga. 151; Hesselgrave v. State, 63 Neb. 809. See also Fossett v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 117. 2. Bond and Recognizance Distinguished. — People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 687. 688. 1. Fixed by Date of Acknowledgment. — — Huston v. People, 12 Colo. App. 271. 2. Bail Bond Taken Without Authority Is Void. — Huston v. People, 12 Colo. App. 271 ; People v. Cook, 68 111. App. 202 ; Cox v. State, 5 Kan. App. 539; Com. v. Phillips, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 118; Clute v. Ionia Circuit Judge, 131 Mich. 203 ; State v. Bartlett, 70 Minn. 199 ; State v. Pratt, 148 Mo. 402; State v. Wood- ward, 159 Mo. 680; State v. Fraser, 165 Mo. 242; State v. Lagoni, 30 Mont. 472; State v. Murphy, 23 Nev. 390 ; Harbolt v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 129. Presumption that Officers Acted Within Their Authority. — Lindsay v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 468. That the Offense Charged Was Barred by Statute does not invalidate the bond or release the sureties. U. S. v. Dunbar, (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 151. 689. 1. Unauthorized Bond Not Good as Com- mon-law Obligation. — People v. Cook, 68 111. App. 202; State v. Fraser, 165 Mo. 242; Scio v. Hollis, 10 Ohio Dec. 99. 487 689-696 BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. Vol. HI. 689. Authority Must Be Strictly Pursued. — See note 2. 690. 3. Formal Requisites of the Instrument — (i) /« &«wr«/. — See note 2. 691. See note i. A Bail Bond, Being of Statutory Origin. — See note 2. Conditions Generally. — See note 3. Conditions More Onerous. — See note 4. 693. Immaterial Omissions or Additions. — See note I . (2) Name of Accused. — See note 2. 693. (3) Appearance — (a) In General. — See note 1. (b) Time and Place. — See notes 2, 3. 694. Term. — See note I. The Court or Plaoe. — See note 2. 695. See note 1. 696. (4) Offense Charged— (a) In General. — See notes 2, 3. 689. 2. Bond Must Conform to Order of Court Amount. — Scio v. Hollis, 10 Ohio Dec. 99. Surety Released by Failure of Officer to Require Proper Signature of Cosurety. — Com. v. Belt, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 431. 690. 2. Name of Prosecutor Unnecessary. — State v. Fuller, 128 Ala. 45. Irregularities in Bond Cured by Statute. — Hardesty v. State, 5 Kan. App. 780. 691. 1. Defects Cured by Statute. — Allen v. Com., (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep, 1027. Taken "In Open Court." — A statutory re- quirement that the recognizance state that it was taken " in open court " is sufficiently com- plied with by a recital that it was taken " be- fore the court in session." Haley v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 38. Eecognizance Not Declared Void "On Close Technical Grounds." — State v. Quattlebaum, 67 S, Car. 203. 2. State v. Fuller, 128 Ala. 45 ; Herbert v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 524; Adams v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 334 ; Anderson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 470 ; Cater v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 12; Cooper v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 346; Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 ,S. W. Rep. 517; Com. v. Fulks, 94 Va. 585 ; Can- non v. Com., 96 Va. 573. See also Haley v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 38. 3. Conditions in Instrument. — Howlett v. Turner, 93 Mo. App. 20. Words of Similar Import Sufficient. — Reed v. Police Ct., 172 Mass. 427. 4. Stanly v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 34s; Robertson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 517. But see Kansas City v. Hescher, 4 Kan. App. 782. 692. 1. State v. Lambert, 44 W. Va. 308. 2. Name of Accused Essential. — State v. Ful- ler, 128 Ala. 45 ; Cox v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 838. Slight Error in Name Does Not Invalidate. — State v. Ballentine, 106 Mo. App. 190; State v. Porter, (S. Dak. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 80. 693. I. Appearance. — Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 197. Under the Virginia Statute (Code Va., § 4093), the. recognizance must require the appearance of the accused at a stated time to answer the offense with which such person is charged. Cannon v. Com., 96 Va. 573. 2. Appearance from Term to Term. — A recog- nizance requiring the accused to appear " from time to time," instead of " from term to term " as provided by statute, is fatally defective. Samamiego v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 996; Fulton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 227. '3. Reasonable Certainty Sufficient. — Jedlicka v. State, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 463, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 196; Camp v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 142. 694. 1. Must Require Appearance at "Next" Term. — Tollesgn v. State, 139 Ala. 159; Bax- strum v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 748 ; Marshall v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 273. 2. Court or Place of Appearance. — Ex p. Hays, 43 Tex. Crim. 268. See also Com. v. Meeser, 19 Pa. Super. Ct 1. Sufficient Description. — See State v. Murphy, 23 Nev. 390 ; Ex p. Hays, 43 Tex. Crim. 268. 695. 1. Moseley v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 18; Sloan v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 63; Mackey v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 24. 696. 2. Statement of Offense, — State v. Moore, 2 Penn. (Del.) 299; Candler v. Kirksey, 113 Ga. 309; State v. Murphy, 23 Nev. 390; Ramsey v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 392 ; Mara v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 183 ; Wade v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 580 ; Loveless v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 361. See also Com. v. Fulks, 94 Va. 585. Contra, Kinney v. State, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 97. Parol Evidence as to Offense Not Admissible. — .State v. Moore, 2 Penn. (Del.) 299. In Kansas by Statute the validity of the recog- nizance does not depend on its stating the ex- act offense charged, if it appears that the accused is lawfully in custody charged with a public offense. Kansas City v. Hescher, 4 Kan. App. 782. 3. Accuracy Necessary in Indictment Not Re- quired. — State v. Reiman, 3 Penn. (Del.) 73 ; Vaughan v. Candler, 113 Ga. 9, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 696 ; Main v. Com,, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 970; State v. Ruthing, 49 La. Ann. 909 ; Collins v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 30 ; Camp v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 142; Lewis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep, 988. Assault with Intent to Kill. — Vaughan v. Candler, 113 Ga. 9. A Conspiracy to Defraud the United States stated as that the accused " conspired to de-- Vol, III. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. 607-701 607. (b) Specific Name. — See note i . 608. See note l. (c) Must Be Funishabje by Law. — See note 2. 600. (d) Variance between Charge and Recognizance. — See note I. (e) After Indictment. — See note 2. 700. (f) After Conviotioo. — See note i. (g) Disjunctive Statement. — See note 2. (5) Amount of Penalty. — ■ See notes 3, 4, 5. 701. (6) Designation of Cognize e or Obligee. — See note 1. c. Signing and Sealing — (i) Recognizance. — See note 2. The Statutes of Some States. — See note 4. fraud the United States " is sufficient, without stating the date of the offense, the persons de- frauded, or the section of the Revised Statutes violated. U. S. v. Dunbar, (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 151. Offense Sufficiently Described by Reference to Complaint. — Kansas City v. Gamier, 57 Kan. 412. An Omission to Recite the 'Offense, when no substantial right is affected, has been held not to invalidate the recognizance. People v. Rus- sell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 76s. Whether the Offense Is a misdemeanor or a Felony need not be stated. White v. State, (Tex. Crira. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 770. " Abortion " Synonymous with " To Procure a Miscarriage." — State v. Davis, 27 Utah 368. 697. 1. Specific Name of Offense Sufficient. — Jones v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 364; Loveless v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 361. Abbreviations. — The letters " V. L. O. L." in a recognizance, as an abbreviation of the offense of violating local option laws, have been held not to release the sureties. Allen u. Com., (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 1027. 698. 1. Statutory Ingredients. — Ramsey v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 392 ; Hardin v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 460 ; Johnson v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 26 ; Coggin v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 40 ; Youngman v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 459 ; Salmon v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 995 ; Duffer v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 997; Strain v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 383 ; Loveless v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 361 ; Fikes v. State, (Tex. Crim, 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 248; Mitchell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 594. Offense Charged in Language of Statute. — U. S. v. Dunbar, (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 151; Collins v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 30 ; Robinson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 678. " 2. Must State Punishable Offense. — Vaughan .v. Candler, 113 Ga. 9, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 698; Candler v. Kirk- sey, 113 Ga. 309; Hardin v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 460 ; Cannady V- State, 37 Tex. Crim. 123; McClure v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 129; Mc- Means v- State, 37 Tex. Crim. 130; Johnson v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 26; Coggin v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 40 ; Mara v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 183 ; Wade v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 580 ; Swain v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 609; Wilson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 279; Jackson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep, 287 ; Strain v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 383 ; Fikes v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 5' S - W - Re P- 248; Anderson v - State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 593 ; Mitchell «,. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 594 ; State v. Davis, 27 Utah 368. 699. 1. Variance. — .Wilson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 279 ; Hargrove v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 926. 2. After Indictment. — Jackson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 287 ; Youngman v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 459. Immaterial Variance. — Where the indictment charged an assault with intent to murder, a recognizance stating that the accused was charged with an aggravated assault and con- victed of that offense was held to be sufficient. Morrison v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 601. Where the Indictment Charges Several Offenses in different counts, it is sufficient if the recog- nizance describes one of such offenses. Foster v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 374. 700. 1. After Conviction. — Coggin v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 40 ; Teague v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 290 ; Horton v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 600 ; Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 308 ; Angel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 379. • ' 2. Disjunctive Statement. — Lowery v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 609; Strey v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 279; Polly v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 283; Young v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 564 ; Davidson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 488. 3. Amount of Bail Must Be Stated. — Angel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 379. 4. A Requirement that the Parties Be Severally Bound is not violated by the fact that the recognizance states that the principal is bound in the full amount and that each surety is bound in the same sum. Haley v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 38. 5. Bond Void When Taken for Sum in Excess of that Ordered. — Com. v. Riffe, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 772. Less than Statutory Requirement. — Ward v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 545. See also Shields v. State, (Tex. Crim. igoo) 57 S. W. Rep. 670. 701. 1. Recognizance May Run to City In- stead of State. — Kansas City v. Gamier, 57 Kan. 412;. Kansas City v. Hescher, 4 Kan. App. 782. 2. Signature Unnecessary. — McNamara v. People, 183 III. 164; People v. Barrett, 202 111. 287, 95 Am. St. Rep. 230. 4. Kansas City v. Fagan, 4 Kan. App. 796; State v. Pratt, 148 Mo. 402; Teague v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 290. Signature in Body of Instrument, — Nelson v. 489 ?7©3-7©6 BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. Vol. III. 70S. 703. 704. 705. 706. See note i. (2) Bail Bonds. — See note 3. d. Acknowledgment. — See note 4. A Verbal Acknowledgment. — See note I. /. Approval. — See note 5. g. Filing and Recording — (1) In General. — See note 2. (3) Time of Filing — Statutes Directory. — See note 3. h. Bonds on Appeal from Conviction. — See notes 4, 5. See notes 1, 2, 3, 5. 'State, 44 Tex. Crim. 595; McHowell v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 227. Principal Need Not Sign — Sureties Bound. — State v. Ballentine, 106 Mo. App. 190. Statute Directory. — The South Carolina stat- ute requiring the signature of the accused is merely directory. State v. Quattlebaum, 67 S. Car. 203. 702. 1. Names of Sureties to Be Eecited in Bond. — See Herbert v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 5 2 4- „, 3. Bail Bond. — Nelson v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 595. What Sufficient Signature. — See Whitener v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 146. Agent Signing Bond Must Have Written Au- thority. — Com. v. Belt, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 431. 4. In Kansas it is not required that the recog- nizance be acknowledged as at common law. Kansas City v. Fagan, 4 Kan. App. 796. 703. 1. Statute Dispensing with Signing Constitutional. — McNamara v. People, 183 111. 164. 5. Approval. — Crumpecker v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 564. 704. 2. Filing Recognizance. — State v. Fratt, 148 Mo. 402. See also Com. v. Meeser, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 1. Compare State v. Lagorri, 30 Mont. 472. Record on Day of Entry Not Essential. — Mc- Namara v. People, 183 111. 164. 705. 3. On Appeal. — In Texas the recog- nizance on appeal must be entered of record during the term to which the appeal is return- able. Maxey v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 556. 4. Name of Court. — Kazda v . State, 52 Neb. 499 ; Adams v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 534 ; Fincher v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 732; Skidmo're v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 859; Guill v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 303; McRay v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 161 ; Nix v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 161 ; Satterwhite v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 396 ; Angel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 379. 5. Offense Charged. — Nunn.z/. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 435 ; Wade v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 580 ; Stewart v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 513; McGough v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 712; Boyett v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 495 ; Hortoni;. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 600 ; Angel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 379. 706. 1. Must Require Appearance. — Bige- low v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 402 ; Henry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 609 ; Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 197 ; Anderson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 470. Appearance from Day to Day and from Term to Term " of the Same " (the quoted words refer- ring to the court) is essential to the validity of the recognizance under the Texas statute. Meeks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 910. 2. Amount of Indebtedness to Be Specified. — Teague v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 290. 3. Bigelow v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 402; Nunn v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 435 ; Wade v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 580 ; Bolton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 525 ; Allen v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 308 ; Angel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 379- Material Mistake in Recital of Conviction. — Bennett v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 244; Chappell v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 928; Sturgeon v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 1067; Roberts v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902)- 68 S. W. Rep. 272 ; Horton v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 600; Buck v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 12. Punishment Imposed Must Be Stated. — Under the Texas statute (Code Crim. Pro. Tex. 1895, art. 887) the. recognizance must show the pun- ishment or amount of fine adjudged against the defendant. May v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 196 ; Herrington v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 402 ; Davis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 403 ; Davis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 580 ; Barchinskey v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 583 ; Still v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 594; Johnson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 594; Bird v. State, (Tex. Criin. 1899) So S. W. Rep. 715; Swope v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 715 ; Perry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 229; Donnelly v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 228; Howard v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 229; Peck v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 229; Fikes v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 248; Westfall ■. Eyermann, 172 Mo. 294. After Forfeiture the capture of the principal does not invalidate the judgment of forfeiture or release the bail. Reed v. Police Ct., 172 Mass. 427. Arrest in Another District for Federal Offense. — In re Beavers, 131 Fed. Rep. 366. 4. Bailey v. State, 71 Ark. 498; State v. Osborn, 155 Ind. 385, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 718; State v. Zimmer- man, 1 1 2 Iowa 5 ; Carleton v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 1044. 7. Illegal Rearrest Not a Discharge. — State v. Osborn, 155 Ind. 385, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 718. 719. 1. State v. Crosby, 114 Ala. n ; Havis v. State, 62 Ark. 500 ; State v. Osborn, 155 Ind. 385, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 719. An Arrest under a Second Indictment for the Same Offense is no more than an arrest for a second offense, and does not release the sure- ties. Foster v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 372. 2. Huston v. People, 12 Colo. App. 271. Compare Combs v. Com., 103 Ky. 385. 4, State v. Crosby, 114 Ala. 11; Havis v. State, 62 Ark. 500. When, tfcfl Defendant Was iji Qus^qdy for an.- 494 Vol. III. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. 720-735 720. (2) Inconsistent Agreement with Principal. — See note 1. (3) Failure to Indict Principal. — See notes 2, 3. (4) Quashing Indictment or Entry of Nolle Prosequi. — See note 4. 721. (5) Discharge of Principal by Court. — See note 1. (6) Acquittal or Conviction of Principal — Acquittal. — See note 2. Conviction. — See notes 3, 4. XIII. Forfeiture of Bail — 1. Power to Adjudge. — See notes 4, 5. 2. Grounds of Forfeiture. — See note 2. XIV. Remission of Forfeiture — 1. In General — Remission in Part. — See note 1. 2. Power to Remit — a. COURTS — In the United states. — See notes 3, 4. 725. b. Governor. — See note 2. 3. Grounds of Remission — a. Surrender of Principal — statutory Relief. — See note 3. 722. 723. 724. other offense at the time of the execution of his bail bond, and was kept in such custody, but subsequently escaped, his bail was never- theless liable. Dunlap v. State, 66 Ark. 105. See also Combs v. Com., 103 Ky. 383. 719. 5. Giving Bail on Second Arrest — Rights and Liabilities of Former Bail. — See Foster v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 372. 720. 1. The Signature of a Second Surety is necessary to bind the surety who first signs when it is agreed that the bond is not binding until signed by another person. People v. Cleaver, 74 111. App. 210. 2. Prosecution Barred by Prescription. — A fail- ure to indict the principal until the prosecution is barred by prescription releases the bondsmen. Louisiana Soc, etc., v. Moody, m La. 199. Insufficiency of Indictment. — Liability on a bond cannot be resisted on the ground that the indictment was insufficient, unless it was totally void. Williams v. Candler, 119 Ga. 179. 3. Discharge by Court at End of Term. — See Braxton v. Candler, 112 Ga. 459. Release of Sureties by Failure to File Informa- tion in Statutory Period, — State v. Lewis, 33 Wash. 261. 4. Quashing Indictment or Entry of Nol. Pros. — Silvers v. State, 59 N. J. L. 428. 721. 1. Discharge by Court. — State v. Clerk, 16 Ind. App. 137. Discharge on Habeas Corpus. — State v. Adler, 67 Ark. 469. 2. Savannah v. Kassell, 113 Ga. 310; State v. Martin, 50 La. Ann. 1157. See also Com. v. Real Estate Title, etc., Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 235- Reversal of Conviction on Appeal Discharge under Original Bond. — Jenkins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 464. 5. Ex p. Williams, 114 Ala. 29. 4. State v. Ruthing, 49 La. Ann. 909. Com- pare State v. Zimmerman, 112 Iowa 5, stated supra, this title, 715. 3. 722. 4. Forfeiture — Power to Adjudge. — See People v. Rich, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 60. A Municipal Court in Georgia cannot adjudge a forfeiture unless a system of procedure there- for has been adopted by the proper municipal authorities. Roger v. Madison, 108 Ga. 543. A Judgment of Forfeiture for a Smaller Sum than the amount of the bond is unauthorized. State v. Connolly, 72 Conn. 607. ?Wi9^$9S 9? V°iW! Stages, Pfeftiti Courts, to 495 Enforce Forfeited Recognizance. — See Kirk v. U. S., 131 Fed. Rep. 331. The Recognizance Is Presumed to Have Been Before the Court when the judgment of forfeit- ure was made. Com. v. Meeser, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 1. 5. State v. Quattlebaum, 67 S. Car. 203. Upon Change of Venue. — State v. Baughman, (Mo. App. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 433 ; Harbolt v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 129. Forfeiture in Term Time Only. — State v. Hind- man, 159 Ind. 586. Competency of Evidence — Recognizance Supple- mented by Parol on Forfeiture Proceeding. — See Kirkland v. Candler, 114 Ga. 739. In South Carolina jurisdiction rests exclus- ively with the Court of General Sessions. State v. Quattlebaum, 67 S. Car. 203. 723. 2. Breach of Conditions the Ground of Forfeiture. — States. Crosby, 114 Ala. 11; State v. Osborn, 155 Ind. 385. 724. 1. Remission May Be in Whole or in Part — Hall v. Com., (Ky. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 458 ; Com. v. Cohen, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 55. 8. The Collection of a Forfeited Recognizance May Be Enjoined under proper circumstances. Kirk v. U. S.,(C. C. A.) 130 Fed. Rep. 112. 4. Statutes — Power of Court to Remit Forfeit- ures. — State v. Hayes, 104 La. 461 ; State v. Bongard, 89 Minn. 426 ; Matter of Sayles, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 210; People v. .Pernetti, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 510; Com. v. Real Estate Title, etc., Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 235 ; State v. Quattle- baum, 67 S. Car. 203. Statutory Method of Relief Must Be Pursued. — State v. Bordelon, 113 La. 21. Appeal by Prosecutor. — The prosecutor of the criminal charge has no interest in a for- feited recognizance, and he cannot prosecute an appeal from an order remitting the forfeiture. Com. v. Real Estate Title, etc., Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 235. Review by Appellate Court. — See Matter of Sayles, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 210. 725. 2. Pardon of Principal Does Not Remit Forfeiture. — Dale v. Com., 10 1 Ky. 612. 3. Surrender of Principal — Statutory Relief. — See Hardesty v. State, 5 Kan. App. 780. Requisites of Surrender. — The surrender must be made in open court or within the four walls of the prison. State v. Bordelon, 113 La. si. Tie Burden of Proof tfcat, \\& |r|aen$r was 796-730 BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE — BAILIFF. Vol. III. 726. Discretionary Belief. — See notes I, 2, 3, 4. 727. Effect of Subsequent Trial. — See note 2. 728. See note 1. Costs. — See note 2. XV. Title to Forfeited Penalty — Bights of Counties. — See note 5. Commonwealth Attorney. — See note 6. 730. BAILIFF. — See note 3. surrendered into the proper custody is upon the surety. People v. Mahoney, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 89 N. Y. Supp. 424. An Appearance under the Coercive Influence of the Court, and too late for trial at the term, does not entitle the sureties to" a remission of the forfeiture. State v. Martin, 49 La. Ann. 752- 726. 1. Surrender — Bight to Remission Not Thereby Established. — State v. Martin, 50 La. .Anii. U57. 2. Belief After Forfeiture Discretionary. — Hall v. Com., (Ky. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 458; Matter of Sayles, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 210; Com. v. Fogelman, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 566 ; Com. v. Cohen, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 55. 3. Sickness of Principal. — Compare Ringe- man v. State, 136 Ala. 131 ; State v. Bordelon, in La. 105. 4. Good Excuse for Nonappearance Essential. — Hafdesty v. State, 5 Kan. App. 780. 727. 2. Remission Not Granted until After Trial of Principal. — State v. Bordelon, 1 1 1 La. tos, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 727. See also State v. Taylor, 136 Mo. 462. And in support of the second paragraph of the original note, see State v. Martin, 30 La. Ann. 1 157. 728. 1. Equitable Considerations, together with the fact that a fugitive defendant was se- ^ cured and acquitted, may warrant a court in the exercise of its discretion in remitting a for- feiture. Com. v. Real Estate Title, etc., Co., 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 235. 2. Payment Of Costs a Condition of Remission. — Hardesty v. State, 5 Kan. App. 780. 5. Title to Forfeited Penalty. — Russell v. State, (Tex. Civ. App. J897) 40 S. W. Rep. 69. Title to Forfeited Deposit in Commonwealth. — Com. v. Leech, 103 Ky. 389. Title in County in Which Forfeiture "Was In- curred. — State v. June, 63 Kan. 5. Upon Reversal of a Judgment of Forfeiture money collected and paid to the county under such judgment must be refunded. Metschan v. Grant County, 36 Oregon 117. 6. See Williams v. Shelbourne, 102 Ky. 579. The Attorney in Office at the Time of the For- feiture and the vesting of the title to the money deposited in lieu of bail is entitled to the per- centage. Arnsparger -u. Norman, 101 Ky. 208. 730. 3. See Nicholson v. State, 38 Fla. 99. 496 BAILMENTS. By VT. B: Robinsons. 733. II. Definition and Nature of Bailment — 1. Definition. note i. 736. 2. Bailment Distinguished from Sale — The Fundamental Distinction. note i. Application of the Rule. — See note 2. Saturn of Goods, in Kind — Mutuum. — See note 3. See See 733. 1. For Various Definitions of " bail- ment " see the following cases : Alabama. — Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 733- Delaware. — State v. SienMewiez, 4 Penn. (Del.) 59. Georgia. — Massillorr Engine, etc., Co. v. Akerman, no Ga. 570; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Baker, 118 Ga. 809. Illinois. — McCaffrey v. Knapp, 74 111'. App. 80, affirmed 178 111. 112, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 733. Maryland. — Blondell v. Consolidated Gas Co., 89 Md. 732. Missouri. — ■ Potter v. Mt. Vernon Roller Mill Co., 101 Mo. App. 581 ; O'Neal v. Stone, 79 Mo. App. 279. New Jersey. — New York, etc., R. Co. -v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338. Pennsylvania. — Morgan-Gardner Electric Co. v. Brown, 193 Pa. St. 351. South Carolina. — McGee v. French, 49 -S. Car. 454.- Texas. — MaFz v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 447. Utah. — Haskins v. Dem, 19 Utah 97, quot- ing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 733- Vermont. — James Smith Woolen Mach. Co. v. Holden, 73 Vt. 396, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 733. West Virginia. — Coulter v. Blatchtey, 51 W. Va. 166, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 733; Thompson v. Whitaker Iron Co., 41 W. Va. 574. A Lease of Chattels. — See Rapid Safety Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Hay-Budden Mfg. Co., (Supm. CU App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 556, affirmed 77 N. Y. App. Div. 643. The Charter of a Boat. — Lake Michigan Car Ferry Transp. Co. v. Crosby, 107 Fed. Rep. 723. See also Gannon v. Consolidated Ice Co., (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 539. Vendor Retaining Possession After Sale Is Bailee of Vendee. — Strong v. Morgan, 8 Idaho 269. To Make Out a Case of Bailment There MuBt Be a Contract. — Where the defendant became pos- sessed of certain goods by the fraudulent repre- sentation to the plaintiff of a third party that he was the defendant, thereby inducing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant, and subse- quently the" third party presented at the defend- ant's place a forged order for the goods pur- porting to be from the plaintiff, whereupon the J Supp. E. of L.— 32 497 defendant delivered, it was held that the de- fendtat was not a bailee. Knamsky ». Lorser, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 504. Contract of Bailment Independent One. — The bailee is independent of the bailor in the use of the thing bailed, and the bailor is not re- sponsible to third parties for damage resulting from a wrongful or negligent use by the' bailee- New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338. But see IHi'nois Cent. R. Co. v. Sims, 77 Miss. 325. Possession — Independent and Exclusive. — In order to constitute a bailment there must be an independent and temporarily exclusive posses- sion in the bailee. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Baker, 118 Ga. 809. Delivery of a Mare to a Blacksmith to have her shod is a bailment. Pusey v. Webb, 2 Penn. (Del.) 490. The Deposit of a Draft on a third party in the absence of a special understanding is a bail- ment. Perth Amboy Gas Light Co. v. Middle- sex County Bank, 60 N- J- Eq. 84. One Who Executes a Bill of Sale of certain crops and agrees to hold them for the creditor and subject to his order is a bailee of such crops. Baston v. Rabun, 115 Ga. 378. 736. 1. Distinction Between Bailment and Sale. — In re Gait, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 64 ; Genobia Aragon de Jaramillo v. U. S., 37 Ct. CI. 208; Westphal v. Sipe, 62 HI. App. ni; David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Raynor, 70 III. App. 639; Steward v. Sears, 89 III. App. 454; Fleet v. Hertz, 98 111. App. 564; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Ellington, 103 111. App. 517; Scott Min., etc.j Co. v. Shultz, 67 Kan. 605, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 734; O'Neal v. Stone, 79 Mo. App. 279. 3. For Contracts Held to Be Bailments and Not Sales, see Johnson v. Allen, 70 Conn. 738 ; Harris v. Coe, 71 Conn. 157; Wiggins v. Tumlin, 96 Ga. 753 ; Seelig v. Dumas, 48 La. Ann. 1494 ; Weiland v. Krejnick, 63 Minn. 314; Weiland v. Sunwall, 63 Minn. 320 ; State v. Barry, 77 Minn. 128; Baker v. Priebe, 59 Neb. 597; Sattler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291, 73 Am. St. Rep, 686; Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Schetrompf, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 377; Woodward v. Edmunds, 20 Utah ri8. For Contracts Held to Be Sales and Not Bail- ments, see Hagey v. Schroeder, 30 Ind. App. 151 ; Norwegian Plow Co. v. Clark, 102 Iowa 31 ; Weiland v. Sunwall, 63 Minn. 320. 3. Where a Man Hires or Leases Animals,— 737-744 BAILMENTS. Vol. III. 737. Exception — Delivery of Grain to Warehouse. — See note I. 738. See note I. Return of Bailed Article in Altered Form. — bee note 2. 739. See note I. 3. Bailment with Provision for Sale. — See note 2. 74L1 See note i. III. The Various Kinds of Bailments — 2. Bailments for Benefit of Bailor — a. Deposit. — See note 4. b. Mandate. — See note 5. 742. 4. Bailments for Benefit of Both Parties — £. BAILMENTS FOR HIRE. — See note 2. 743. IV. Duties, Liabilities, and Rights of Parties — 1. Of the Bailee in Respect to the Bailor — a. Responsibility for Care of Thing Bailed — (2) The Several Degrees of Diligence and Negligence Considered — Degrees of Negligence. — See note 3. 744. Diligence or Negligence Question of Fact. — See notes I, 2. Genobia Aragon de Jaramillo v. U. S., 37 Ct. CI. 208. But see Woodward v. Edmunds, 20 Utah 118; Turnbow v. Beckstead, 25 Utah 468. 737. 1. Grain in Warehouse. — Mayer v. Springer, 95 111. App. 173, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 737; Baker v. Born, 17 Ind. App. 422; Drudge v. Leiter, 18 Ind. App. 694, 63 Am. St. Rep. 359; Barrows v. Wampler, 24 Ind. App. 472; McGrew v. Thayer, 24 Ind. App. 578 ; Jackson v. Sevatson, 79 Minn. 275 ; Potter v. Mt. Vernon Roller Mill Co., 101 Mo. App. 581. Character of Transaction Shown by Extrinsic Evidence. — Leiter v. Emmons, 20 Ind. App. 26, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 737- 738. 1. Option to Pay the Market Price.— Potter v. Mt. Vernon Roller Mill Co., 101 Mo. App. 581 ; O'Neal v. Stone, 79 Mo. App. 279. See also McGrew v. Thayer, 24 Ind. App. 578 ; Weiland v. Sunwall, 63 Minn. 320 ; Lawlor v. Nicol, 12 Manitoba 224. 2. Where Wheat Is Delivered to a Miller. — O'Neal v. Stone, 79 Mb. App. 279. Delivery of Farm Products to be manufactured by the plaintiff into pickles, sauerkraut, and similar articles, and the net profits to be divided between the plaintiff and the defendants, is a bailment and not a sale of such products. Sat- tler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291, 73 Am. St. Rep. 686, affirming 15 N. Y. App. Div. 500. 739. 1. Contract a Bailment as to Materials Not Used. — See Roesch v. Wren, 12 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 213. 2. Bailment with Provision for Sale. — Case v. L'Oeble, 84 Fed. Rep. 582; In re Gait, (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 64; Furst v. Commercial Bank, 117 Ga. 472; Donnelly v. Mitchell, 119 Iowa 432. Bailment or Conditional Sale — Pennsylvania Cases. — For cases held to be bailments, see Collins v. Belief onte Cent. R. Co., 171 Pa. St. 243 ; Lippincott v. Scott, 198 Pa. St. 283, 82 Am. St. Rep. 801 ; Jones v. Wands, ' Pa. Super. Ct. 269 ; Rieker v. Koechling, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 286 ; Lippincott v. Holden, 1 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 15; Harris v. Shaw, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 1; Painter v. Snyder, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 603 ; Porter v. Duncan, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 58. For cases held to be conditional sales, see Briggs Carriage Co. v. Mfg. Co., 30 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 95; Harper v. Hogue, 10 Pa. Super.. Ct. 624. Bailment Convertible into Sale. — When the bailee of a leased chattel, under a contract that title shall pass when the payments of rent amount to a certain sum, has defaulted in pay- ment, but the bailor has the option to affirm and continue the lease and does so affirm, the bailment becomes a sale. Stiles -u. Seaton, 200 Pa. St. 114. 741. 1. Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Oregon 315; Morgan-Gardner Electric Co. v. Brown, 193 Pa. St. 351 ; Henderson v. Ma- honey, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 539; Nye v. Daniels, 7S Vt. 81. 4. Deposit. — Bissell v. Harris, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 779. 5. Mandate. — See Beugnot v. Tremoulet, 52 La. Ann. 454. 742. 2. Whether a Bailment Is Gratuitous or Not Is a Question of Fact. — See Voss v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 16 Ind. App. 271, holding fur- ther that a porter of a sleeping car removing baggage for passengers in the course of his duty and in pursuance of a custom of the com- pany is not a mere gratuitous bailee, and the company is liable for loss owing to his negli- gence. 743. 3. Degrees of Negligence Defined and Distinguished. — Mason v. St. Louis Union Stock Yards Co., 60 Mo. App. 93. Gross Negligence has been defined as the entire failure to exercise care, or the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to justify the belief that there was an indifference to the interest and welfare of others. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Flanary, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 214. 744. 1. Diligence or Negligence Question of Fact. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co., 118 Cal. 368; Saunders v. Hart- sook, 85 111. App. 55 ; Schneps v. Sturm, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 168 ; Whalen v. New York, etc., Electric Co., 63 N. Y. App. Div. 615. See also Standard Brewery Co. v. Hales, etc., Malting Co., 70 111. App. 363 ; Pel- ton v. Nichols, 180 Mass. 245 ; Vroman s t>. Kryn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 94- 2. What Constituces Diligence Dependent on Circumstances. — King v. National Oil Co., 81 Mo. App. 155; Schneps v. Sturm, (Supm. Ct. 498 Vol. III. BAILMENTS. 745-747 745. (3) General Liability of the Several Classes of Bailees — (b) Eeiponsi- bilities of the Several Clasaes Distinguished — When the Bailment Is for the Sole Benefit of the Bailor. — See note 2. 746. When the Bailment Is for the Sole Benefit of the Bailee. — See note I . When the Bailment Is Beoiprocally Beneficial to Both Parties. — See note 2. 747. (e) Bailee Not an Insurer. — See note I. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 168. See also French Republic v. World's Columbian Expo- sition, 83 Fed. Rep. 109, reversing (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 64; Cantancarito v. Siegel-Cooper Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 664. Using Barge After It Had Become Unseaworthy, with knowledge of its defective condition, was held to render the user liable for the loss of the barge. Higman v. Camody, 112 Ala. 267, 57 Am. St. Rep. 33. 745. 2. Gratuitous Bailee Liable for Gross Negligence Only — Arkansas. — St. Louis South- western R. Co. v. Henson, 61 Ark. 302. Kentucky. — Anderson v. Heile, 64 S. W. Rep. 849, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 11 15. Michigan. — • Marshall v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co., 126 Mich. 43, 7 Detroit Leg. N. 715. Missouri. — Mason v. St. Louis Union Stock Yards Co., 60 Mo. App. 93 ; McKenna v. Walker, 85 Mo. App. 570. Nebraska. — Bissell v. Harris, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 779- New Hampshire. — Gagnon v. Dana, 69 N. H. 264, 76 Am. St. Rep. 170. New York. — De Lemos v. Cohen, ( Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 579; McKillop v. Reich, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 334 ; Hoffman v. Roessle, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 787. Texas. — Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Flanary, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 214. Canada. — Leggo v. Welland Vale Mfg. Co., 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45. See also Dinsmore v. Abbott, 89 Me. 373 ; Campbell v. Watson, '62 N. J. Eq. 396 ; Smith v. Elizabethport Banking Co., 69 N. J. L. 288. But see Serry v. Knepper, 101 Iowa 372. 746. 1. Borrower Liable for Slight Negligence. — See Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596. 2. Bailee for Hire Liable for Ordinary Negligence — United States. — Gannon v. Consolidated Ice Co., (C. C. A.) 91 Fed. Rep. 539 ; Lake Michigan Car Ferry Transp. Co. v. Crosby, 107 Fed. Rep. 723 ; Smith v. Britain Steamship Co., 123 Fed. Rep. 176. Alabama, -s- Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Buf- fington, 131 Ala. 623, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 746 ; Higman v. Cam- ody, 112 Ala. 267, 57 Am. St. Rep. 33; Davis v. Hurt, 114 Ala. 146. Arkansas. — Union Compress Co. v. Nun- nally, 67 Ark. 284, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 746. California. — Barrere v. Somps, 113 Cal. 97. Connecticut. — Gillette v. Goodspeed, 69 Conn. 363. Delaware. — Pusey v. Webb, 2 Penn. (Del.) 490. Illinois. — Standard Brewery Co. v. Bemis, etc., Malting Co., 171 111. 602; Mayer v. Bren- singer, 180 111. no, 72 Am. St. Rep. 196. Iowa. — Wisecarver v. Long, 120 Iowa 59. Kentucky. — Kimball v. Dahoney, (Ky. J896) 38 S. W. Rep. 3- Massachusetts. — Lincoln v. Gay, 164 Mass. 537, 49 Am. St. Rep. 480. Michigan. — Knights v. Piella, 1 1 1 Mich. 9. Montana. — Shropshire v. Sidebottom, 30 Mont. 406. Nebraska. — Purnell v. Minor, 49 Neb. 555. New Jersey. — New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338. New York. — Waterman v. American Pin Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 638 ; Lynch v. Kluber, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 601 ; Moeran v. New York Poultry, etc., Assoc, . Downey, 133 Mich. 163, 10 Detroit Leg. Nj 153, citing 3 Am. an8 Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 75° ; Knights v. Piella, in Mich. 9. Missouri. — Casey v. Donovan, 75 Mo-. App-. 665 ; Hadley v. Orchard, 77 Mo. App. 141 ; 1 Clark v. Shrimski, 77 Mo. App. 166; Dailey v. Black, 92 Mo. App. 228; Dixon v. McDonnell; 92 Mo. App. 479. Montana. — Shropshire v. Sidebottom, 30 Mont. 406. Nebraska. — Bissell v. Harris, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 779, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 750; Sulpho-Saline Bath Co. v. Allen, 66 Neb. 295. Nevada. — Donlan v. Clark, 23 Nev. 203. New Jersey. —Jackson v. McDonald, 70 N. J. L. 594, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 750. . New York. — Rutherford v. Krause, 55 Ni Y. App. Div. 211, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 750; Kafka v. Leven- sohn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 202; Campbell v. Muller, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 189 ; Waterman v. American Pin Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 638; Rhind v. Stake, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 177; Lyons v. Thomas, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 175; Rothosef v. Cosel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Mise. (N. Y.) 337 ; Snell v. Cornwell, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 136. Texas. — • Hislop v. Ordneir, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 540, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 750; Cochran -u. Walker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 403 1 . Wisconsin. — Hildebrand v. Carroll; 106 Wis. 324, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of LAw (2d ed.) 750. In Georgia, by statute, in all cases of bail- ment after proof of loss the burden df proof is on the bailee to show proper diligence. Massillon Engine, etc., Co. v. Akermam no Ga. 570 ; Concord Variety Works v. Beckham, 112 Ga. 242. When Presumption floes Not Prevail. — The presumption will not prevail where the bailor's servant is also charged with the duty and has the same opportunity -to care fbr the balled article as the bailee's servant. Wall v. Gillin Printing Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 649. 2. Burglary. — Knights v. Piella, 1 1 1 Mich. 9 ; Hadley v. Orchard, 77 Mo. App. 141 ; Kafka v. Levensohn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 202; Hoffmann V. Coughlin, (Supm. Ct. App, T.) i6 Misc. (N. Y.) 24; Rothbser ii. Cosel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc: (N. Y.) 337. See also Donlan v. Clark, 23 Nev. 203; Geist v. Pollock, 58 111. App. 429. 3. Fire. — James v. Orrell, 68 Ark. 284, Si 900 Vol. in. BAILMENTS. 752 -758 75ft. Proof that Bailee Took Same Care of Bailed Goods as of His Own. — See notes I, 3. b. Liability for Conversion — (i) Generally^ -— See note 4. (2) What Constitutes Conversion — (a) Unauthorised. Use of Chattel. — ■ See note 5. 753. See notes 1, 2, 3. 754. The Subsequent Beturn of the Chattel. — See note I. (1>.) Unauthorized Sale of the Chattel. — See note 2. " (d) Destruction of Chattel. —■ See note 8. 755. (e) Misdelivery of Chattel — aa. In General. — See note I. 756. Delivery to True Owner. — See -note I. l>6. Delivery under Process of Law. — See note 3. 757. (f) Wrongful Detention of Chattel — aa. In General — Duty of Bailee to Beturn or Deliver. — See note 4. 758. Duty Implied by Law. — See note 2. Am. St Rep, 293, citing 3 Am. and Eng, Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 751; Standard Brew- ery Co. v. Hales, etc., Malting Co., 70 111. App. 363, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 751. 751. 5. Death of Animal Bailed. — ■ Hislop v. Ordner, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 540. 7. If Bailee Show Inevitable Accident, Bailor Must Prove Negligence. — Dinsmore v. Abbott, 89 Me. 373. See also Higman v. Camody, 112 Ala. 267, 57 Am. St. Rep. 33; Knights v. Piella, in Mich. 9; Koch v. National Express Co., 1 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 289. 752. 1. See Smith v. Elizabethport Bank- ing Co., 69 N. J. L. 288, per Dixbn, J., dis- senting. 3. See Cochran v. Walker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 403. 4. Fraudulent Conversion of Bailed Property as a Crime. — Shafer v, Lacy, 121 Cal, 574; State v. Sienkiewiez, 4 Perm. (Del.) 59 ; State v. Fitzpatrick, 9 Houst. (Del.) 385 ; State v. Barry, 77 Minn. 128 ; People v. Hazard, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 304, 158 N. Y. 727; Malz v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 447. 5. Unauthorized Use a Conversion. — Keiner v. Folsom, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 79 N. Y. Supp. 1099 (conversion of check) ; Evertson v. Frier, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 201, citing 3 Am.' and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 7.52- Where Brokers Held Stock pending payment of a balance due thereon under an agreement that the. stqck was not to be transferred, it was held that a pledge of the stock constituted Conversion, by the bailees. Chew v. Louchr lieim, 39 U. S. App. 619, 80 Fed. Rep. 500. 753. 1. Use in Another Way than Authorized. — Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596 ; Hassett v. Sanborn, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 588 ; Kahaley v . Haley, 15 Wash. 678. 2. Using Chattel to Greater Extent than Au- thorized. — Evertson , v. Frier, ( Tex. Civ. App. i'8'cj's) 45 S. W. Rep. 2pi. 3. Using Chattel Beyond Time Embraced by the Authority. — Ledbetter v. Thomas, 130, Ala. 299 T Waajen v. New York, etc., Electric Co., 63 N. Y. APBi Div- 615; Cochran v. Walker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 403. 754. 1. Beturn, of Chattel After Misuse — Mitigation of Damages. — Wilson v. Press Put). Co., (C PI. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 514. See also Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala, 596. 3, Unauthorized Sale a Conversion. — United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Holt, 185 M a P s - 97) Nichols v. Monjeau, 132 Mich. 582, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 1 ; Mohr v. Langan, yy Mo. App. 481 ; Usher v. Van Vranken, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 417, citing 3 Am. and Eng. En-cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 754. See also Lucas v. Rader, 29 Ind. App. 287 ; Ball-Barnhart-Putman Co. v. Lane, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 727, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 724; Oyler v. Renfro, 86 Mo. App. 321. 8. Destruction of the Chattel a Conversion. — Bain v. Ganzer, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 621. See also May v. Georger, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 622. 755. 1. Misdelivery of Chattel a Conversion — Sonn v. Smith, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 372, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 754; Markoe v. Tiffany, 163 N. Y. 565, affirm- ing 26 N. Y. App. Div. 95 ; McKillop v. Reich, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 334. 756. 1. Delivery to the True, Owner a Defense to Demand of Bailor. — See Sedgwick v. Macy, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 1. 3. Delivery under Process of Ia,w. — Ross v. Edwards, 73 L. T. N. S. 100, n Reports 574; Walter A. Wood Harvester Co. v. Dobry, 59 Neb. 590, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 756. See also Sedgwick u. Macy, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 1. The bailee may excuse failure to deliver by showing that the property bailed was taken by valid process of law and that he gave notice thereof within a reasonable time to the bailqr. Glass v. Hauser, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 661. 757. 4. Duty of Bailee to Beturn or Deliver. — Donlan v. Clark, 23 Nev. 203 ; Snell v. Cornwell, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 136; Gleason v. Morrison, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 320 ; Jones v. Wands, 1, Pa. Super. Ct. 269; Cochran v. Walker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 403. See also New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338 ; Municipal Imp. Co. v. Uvalde Asphalt Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 448. Where the bailee follows the express direc- tions of the bailor, and has delivered to the place where he is directed, he has fully perr formed on his part. Stearns v. Farrand} (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 29?. 758. 2. Duty to Beturn Arises by Implication Of I,a,v?. — Coulter v. B.!atcb,ley, 51 W. Ya, 166. 501 758-762 BAILMENTS. Vol. Ill 758. Refusal to Deliver — Evidence of Conversion. — See note 4. cc. Denying Bailor's Title — (aa) General Rule. — See note J. 759. Setting Up Title in Self. — See note I . c. Compensation and Lien — (i) Right of Bailee to Compen- sation. — See note 5. (2) Right to Lien for Compensation. — See note 6. 760. Agreement for Compensation Necessary to Create Lien. — ■ See note I. Future Day of Payment. : — See note 2. Extent of Lien. ■ — See note 4. Extinction of Lien — Loss of Possession. — See note 6. 2. Of the Bailor in Respect to the Bailee — a. Right to Compensa- tion for Use of Chattel. — See note 10. 761. b. Liability for Expenses Incurred by Bailee — a Gratuitous Bailee. — See note 1 . A Bailee for Hire. — See note 4. 3. Of the Bailee in Respect to Third Persons — 'a. Injury or Loss of Chattel. — See notes 7, 8. 763. Measure of Damages. — See note I. 758. 4. Refusal to Deliver as Evidence of Conversion. — Gleason v. Morrison, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 320, affirming (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y) 4; Coulter v. Blatchley, 51 W. Va. 166, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 758. See Davis v. Hurt, 114 Ala. 146; Smith v. Durham, 127 N. Car. 417; Tindall v. McCarthy, 44 S. Car. 487. 7. Bailee Cannot Dispute Bailor's Title. — Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield, 70 N. J. L. 703, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 758; Sedgwick v. Macy, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 1. See also Ross v. Edwards, 73 L. T. N. S. 100, 11 Reports 574; Texas Stand- ard Cotton-Oil Co. v. National Cotton-Oil Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 159. 759. 1. Bailee Cannot Set Dp Title in Himself. — Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield, 70 N. J. L. 703, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 759. 5. James Smith Woolen Mach. Co. v. Holden, 73 Vt. 396. 6. Bailee's Lien for Compensation. — Pallen v. Bogy, 78 Mo. App. 88 ; Drummond Carriage Co. v. Mills, 54 Neb. 417, 69 Am. St. Rep. 719; Davidson v. Fankuchen, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 196. See also Amazon Irrigat- ing Co. v. Briesen, 1 Kan. App. 758 ; Cohen v. Moshkowitz, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 389 ; Kafka v. Levensohn, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 202. The Bailee Has a, Lien for Taxes Paid on the bailment as required by law. Fowble v. Kemp, 92 Md. 630. Right to Resort to Equity. — A bailee in pos- session, where his lien is disputed and there is danger that he will be deprived of possession by the bailor, may interpose the jurisdiction of equity to protect and enforce his lien. Knapp v. McCaffrey, 178 III. 112. The Bailee Has No Lien where by express contract the bailor is authorized to take pos- session any time he sees fit. Sheaffer v. Sen- senig, 182 Pa. St. 634. And it has been held that a bailee has no lien for labor expended in keeping a carriage clean, as it does not enhance the value of the carriage. Robinson v. Kaplin, (Sunm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 686. 760. 1. Lien Cannot Exist Independent of 502 Agreement for Compensation. — Whitlock Mach. Co. v. Holway, 92 Me. 414; Pallen v. Bogy, 78 Mo. App. 88 ; Lyungstrandh v. William Haaker Co., (Supm. Ct App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 387. See also Dinsmore v. Abbott, 89 Me. 373. 2. See Rollins v. Sidney B. Bowman Cycle Co., 96 N. Y. App. Div. 365, holding that where, under an agreement to repair and de- liver an article, the plaintiff repaired but re- fused to deliver until paid for his services, such refusal constituted a wrongful holding. 4. Extends to All Goods Delivered under One Contract. — McCaffrey v. Knapp, 74 111. App. 80, affirmed 178 111. 112, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 760. 6. Loss of Possession. — Burrow v. Fowler, 68 Ark. 178; Pallen v. Bogy, 78 Mo. App. 88; Block v. Dowd, 120 N. Car. 402. 10. Right of Bailor to Compensation. — See Palmer v. Smith, 76 Conn. 210. 761 . 1. An Involuntary Bailee can recover reimbursement for preserving chattels. Moline, etc., Co. u. Neville. 52 Neb. 574. 4. Where the Bailee Insures the Bailment and subsequently the property is destroyed by fire, the bailee is entitled only to what he has ad- vanced, holding any surplus for the benefit of the bailor. McDonald v. Palmer, (Tenn. Ch. 1S98) 48 S. W. Rep. 338. 7. Bailee Has Right of Action for Injury to Chattel. —The Winkfield, (1902) P. 42, 85 L. T. N. S. 668, overruling Claridge v. South Staf- fordshire Tramway Co., (1892) 1 Q. B. 422; Chicago v. Pennsylvania Co., (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 497; Allen v. Barrett, 100 Iowa 16; Baggett v. McCormack, 73 Miss. 552, 55 Am. St. Rep. 554; Schoenholtz v. Third Ave. R. Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 461 ; Masterson v. International, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 577, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 761. 8. Bailee Has Right to Sue for Conversion. — National Surety Co. v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 70; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Dale, 68 Kan. 108, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 761 ; Vermillion v. Parsons, 101 Mo. App. 602; Sowden v. Kessler, 76 Mo/App. 58t. 762. "1. Measure of Damages.— Masterson Vol. III. BAILMENTS — BA NKR UPT. 762-785 763. 763. 764. 765. b. Liability to True Owner of Chattel. — See note 3. 4. Of Bailor in Respect to Third Persons — a. In General. — See note 7. Bailment Terminable at Will of Bailor — Unlawful Act of Bailee. — See note 9. V. Termination or Bailment — Accomplishment of object. — See note 3. By Act of Parties. — See note 4. By Destruction of Subject-matter. — ■ See note 5. By Conversion. — See notes 6, 7. By Operation of Law. — See note I. Dissolution of Contract Does Not Affect Antecedent Liabilities. — See note 2. BAKER. — See note 4. BALANCE. — See note 5. 767. See note 1. BALANCE SHEET. — See note 2. 768. BALLOT. — See note 4. 770. BAND. — See note 2. BANKABLE. — See note 5. 784. BANK OF A RIVER. — See note 5. 785. BANKRUPT — BANKRUPTCY. — See note 2. v. International, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 577. 762. 3. Redelivery to Bailor After Notice of Third Party's Right. — McGee v. French, 49 S. Car. 454. See also supra, this title, 755. 2, 756. 1, 2. 763. 7, Permanent Injury to Chattel. — New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338, affirmed 61 N. J. L. 287, supporting the whole next paragraph. 9. Where Bailment Determined by Unauthorized Act of Bailee. — Shafer v. Lacy, 121 Cal. 574. 764. 3. By Accomplishment of Object. — Stearns v. Farrand, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 59 N. Y. Supp. 384. 4. By Act of Parties. — Learned-Letcher Co. v. Fowler, 109 Ala. 169; Gleason v. Morrison, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 4. 5. By Destruction of Subject-matter. — See New York, etc., R. Co. v. New - Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338, affirmed 61 N. J. L. 287; Stiles v. Seaton, 200 Pa. St. 114. 6. Unauthorized Sale Terminates Bailment. — See Morris v. Lowe, 97 Tenn. 243. 7. Mere Misuse of Chattel. — See New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 338, holding that misuse rendering the article bailed unsuitable for the uses for which it was hired terminates the contract of bailment. 765. 1. See Knights v. Piella, in Mich. 9. 2. Where a Gratuitous Bailee Died it was held that the bailment terminated by the death of the bailee, and no trust could be impressed upon the res in the hands of his widow. Mor- ris v. Lowe, 97 Tenn. 243. 4. The Term " Bakery Property " may properly include not only those parts of the estate in which baking is carried on or intended to be carried on, but also other parts which are used, or intended to be used, for storage; distributing, or other purposes connected with that business. York v. Barstow, 175 Mass. 167. 5. Amount in Controversy. — Prairie Grove Cheese Mfg. Co. v. Luder, 115 Wis. 20, over- ruling the earlier Wisconsin cases and holding that the words " balance due " in such a stat- ute are used in their ordinary sense and mean the remainder after deducting proper credits. 767. 1. See Lynch v. Spicer, 53 W. Va. 426 ; Davis -v. Hutchings, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 52, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 174. 2. A Balance Sheet is nothing more or less than a summation and balance of accounts. It states and shows in a concise manner what is stated and shown by the books of account. It briefly exhibits their contents. It does not pur- port to be a true statement of the actual condi- tion of affairs- in a mercantile house, but a summary of what the books disclose the condi- tion to be. Maxfield v. Seabury, 75 Minn. 93. 768. 4. See States*. Anderson, 100 Wis. 530. In Murdoch v. Strange, 99 Md. 108, the court said : " A ballot is a form of expression for a candidate to be voted for. If the paper falls short of expressing such a wish, it is defective ; certainly, if it expresses nothing, it lacks all of the essential elements of a ballot." The Term " Ballot Paper " as used in a statute punishing the personation of a voter is synony- mous with ballot in an indictment under such a statute. State v. Timothy, 147 Mo. 535. 770. 2. Band of Indians. — In Conners v. U. S-, 180 U. S. 275, the court said : " To con- stitute a band we do not think it necessary that the Indians composing it be a separate political entity, recognized as such, inhabiting a particular territory, and with whom treaties had been or might be made. These peculi- arities would rather give them the character of tribes. The word band implies an in- ferior and less permanent organization, though it must be of sufficient strength to be capable of initiating hostile proceedings.'' 5. Bankable Paper. — See Edw. P. Allis Co. v. Madison Electric Light, etc., Co., 9 S. Dak. 464. 7§4. 5. Boundaries. — See Proctor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 96 Me. 458 ; Ventura Land, etc., Co. v. Meiners, 136 Cal. 284, following How- ard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. (U. S.) 381. 785. 2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy. — See Bernhardt v. Curtis, 109 La. 171. Bankrupt Law and Insolvent Law. — Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181. 503 BANKS AND BANKING. By B. L. Capell. 789. n. Definition and Geneeal Principles — 1. Definition. — See note i. 792. 3. How Far Banks Are Subject to State Control — As to the issuance of Banknotes. — See note 3. 79 J. State Control over Banking Corporations. — See note I. 795. III. Powees and Functions — 1. Powers in General — a. General Statutory Limitations on Banking Powers — Banking corporations. — See note 1. 796. b. Various Powers Considered — (2) To Borrow Money and Secure the Same — Implied Power to Borrow. — See note 3. 798. (3) To Purchase and Hold Property and Deal Therein — Acquiring and Conveying Personal Property. — See note 5- 799. With Regard to Seal Property. — See note I . '89©. '(4) To Lend Credit or Become Guarantor. — See note 2. KOI. See notes 1, 2, 3. (5) To Act as Agent or Broker in Purchases and Loans — The Practice among Banks -of Negotiating Loans tor Customers. — See note 5 . 789. 1. Kiggins v. Munday, 19 Wash. 236, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 789. Obtaining, Negotiating, and Guaranteeing Mortgage Loans is not a banking business. Kiggins v. Munday, 19 Wash. 233. 792. 3. Constitutional Provision Requiring Assent of Voters to Confer "Banking Powers.*' — See State v. Union Stock Yards State Bank, 103 Iowa 549. 794. 1. Constitutional Provisions Affecting EanMng Corporations. — In Minnesota all laws "for the organization of banks of issue must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Palmer v. Zumbrota Bank, 72 Minn. 266. Eight of Legislature to Modify Charter. — In Tfew York it is held that the charter of a bank incorporated under a general law may be modi- fied or repealed by the legislature. Barnes v. Arnold, (Supm. Ct. Eq. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 197. affirmed ,45 *N. Y. App. Div. 314, 169 N. Y. 611. 795. 1. A Grant of a Portion of the Ordinary Banking Powers. — A power given to an insur- ance company to receive moneys in trust, etc., and to lend surplus funds by its charter does not authorize it to do a general banking busi- ness. Memphis City Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 186. 796. 3. Authority to Borrow Money. — Heironimus v. Sweeney, 83 Md. 146, 55 Am. St. Rep. 333. Power to Make Loans is implied in general banking powers. Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. Na- tional Bank, 4 Okla. 17. 798. 5. Acquisition and Disposal of Chattels — Purchase of Its Own Stock. — To prevent loss its own stock may be purchased by the bank, and s^ach -stock does not constitute a re- 504 duction of the capital stock. Draper v. Black- well, 138 Ala. 182. Purchasing and Selling Stocks. — Schofield v. Goodrich Bros. Banking Co., 39 C. C. A. . 76, 98 Fed. Rep. 271 ; Latimer v. Citizens State Bank, 102 Iowa 162. A private bank may accept its own stock as security for an indebtedness, and such a trans- action is not regarded as a purchase of its own stock. Dalzell v. Commercial Bank, 82 Mo. App. 264. But see contra, in Colorado, Kas- sler v. Kyle, 28 Colo. 374. 799. 1. Holding Seal Estate and Dealing Therein. — For a bank to accept real estate transferred to it by a stockholder to cover a deficit in the capital is not an ultra vires act. Brown v. Bradford, 103 Iowa 378. In Tennessee banks may receive real estate as security for loans. Alexander v. Brummett, (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 42 S. W. Rep. 63. §00. 2. Accommodation Indorsement by Bank. — Bacon v. Farmers' Bank, 79 Mo. App. 406 ; Sturdevant v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 62 Neb. 472, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 819. SOI. 1, Guaranty by Bank. — Banks have no authority to guarantee commercial paper. Bacon v. Farmers' Bank, 79 Mo. App. 406. 3. Bank May Become Guarantor to Protect Its Eights. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 114 Fed. Rep. 263, 52 C. C. A. 149. 3. Central R., etc., Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 52 C. C. A. 149. 5. Lending Money for Others is within a bank's power unless prohibited by its charter, and where officers show the depositor the books of the bank and show him the investments, it will be presumed that it is the bank's action and not the individual act of the officer. Bobb v. Savings Bank, (Ky. 1884) 64 S. W. Rep.^g^. Vol. IJL BANKS AND BANKING. 802 80S 803, (7) Prohibition on •.General Trading, and Speculation. — See mote 1. 2. Collections — a. The Bank's Agency to Collect — (1) Celr lecting Commercial Paper an Incident, of Ranking.. — See Jiote 2. (2) Consideration of Contract to Collect. — See note 3. (3) Authority of the Bank to Receive Pay.nt.eni — 4*) .Generally. —See 803. note 1. note 3. 804. 805. (b) Paper Payable at a Partioular Bank — aa. Bank as Rayeb'js Agent. ^-See bb. Bank as Maker's or Acceptor's Agent. — See note 4. (0) Must Accept Only Money in Payment. — See XXQX& 2>, b. Bank's Duties and Liabilities w Making Collections — (1) General Statement — Skill and Diligence Required. — See note 4. §02. 1. 'Buying, Selling, and Exchanging Stock is no part of a legitimate banking busi- ness. Preston v. Marquette, County Sav. Bank, 122 Mich. 696. A bank cannot purchase stock in other cor- porations. Schofield v. Goodrich Bros. Bank- ing Co., 39 C. C. A. 76, 98 Fed. Rep. 271 ; May v. Genesee County Say. Bank, 120 Mich. 330. But _a bank may become the owner of -stock in another bank if it received such stock as security for a loan and became the owner from such a transaction. Latimer v. Citizens State Bank, 102 Iowa 162 ; Battey v. Eureka Bank, 62 Kan. 384. 2. The Power to Collect Need Not Be Expressly Granted. — Knapp v. Saunders, 15 S. Dak. 464. See also Birmingham First Nat. Bank v. New- port First Nat. Bank, 116 Ala. 520, holding that the court will take judicial notice that banks receive paper for collection and collat- erals accompanying them during the usual course of business. 8. Consideration. — Birmingham First Nat. Bank v. Newport First Nat. Bank, 116 Ala. 532, citing 3 Am. and Eng. 'En-cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 802; Kershaw v. Ladd, 34 Oregon 375- ^808. 1. Lowenstein 11. 'Bresler, 109 Ala. 326. 3. Bank Named as Place of Payment Not Payee's Agent. — Montreal Bank v. Ingerson, 105 Iowa 361, citing '3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (si ;ed.) --803, and holding that in order for a bank to become the payee's agent of paper pay- able at that bank, such paper must be -depos- ited in the bank for collection. Eight of One Bank to Send to Another for Collection. — It is held in South Dakota that a bank to which paper payable at that bank has been sent for collection has no implied authority to send it to a hank in another city as its subagent to collect the paper so as to make a payment to the subagent a payment to theioriginai holder. Sherman v. Port Huron Engine, etc., Co., 8 S. Dak. 343. 4. State Bank v. McCabe, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Sep. 20, holding that funds on deposit at the time when a note matures may be ap- plied to the payment of that note, but funds deposited thereafter cannot be so applied. Advance of iMoney 'by Bank. — A bank which in' /effect purchases a- note made payable at that bank, /by advancing payment thereof, has no right of action against the holder of the note because it was paid under a mistake as -to the slate jofrthe' maker's -account. Riverside 'Bank v. Shenandoah First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 276. So where a bank to which -paper was sent for collection issued and mailed a draft -to the drawer, it was held *hat upon discovering the insolvency of the drawee it could not intercept the draft in transitu. Canterbury v. Spaita Bank, 91 Wis. 53, 51 Am. St. -Rep. -870. ■§©4. 2. MayAooept Only Money in Payment. — O'Leary v. Abeles, 68 Ark. 26.2, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law -(2d -ed.) -804; Mon- treal Bank v. Ingerson, 105 Iowa 349 ; National Bank of Commerce v. American Exch. Bank, 151 Mo. 320. See also Citizens' Bank v. Hous- ton, 98 Ky. 139. A Bank May Accept Certified Checks in pay- ment of drafts if -such has been the custom. Jefferson County Sav. Bank v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 98 Tenn. 337. -Partial 'Payment. — It is not within the ;aoope of 'authority for the agent for collection to ac- cept a partial payment. Lowenstein v. Bresler, 109 Ala. 326. 805. 4. Reasonable 'Skill and Ordinary Dili- gence. — Bay Biscayne Bank v. Monongahela Nat. Bank, 126 Fed. Rep. 437, citing 1 '3 Am. -and Enc Encyc. of Law (id ed.) -805 ; Watson v. Fagner, 105 111. App. 52, affirmed 208 111. 136; Merchants State Bank v. State Bank, 94 Wis. 444. No custom, unknown to depositor, will ex- cuse the bank from the exercise of reasonable skill and ordinary diligence. Bank of Com- merce v. MiMer, 105 111. App. 224, dismissed ao2 111. 410. A bank, having used , reasonable skill and diligence in collecting a paper held by it for collection, is not forbidden to obtain a prefer- ence for a debt to itself from the same debtor. U. S. National Bank v. Westervelt, 55 Neb. 424, distinguishing Dern v . Kellogg, 54 Neb. 560. Duty to Follow Instructions. — Where instruc- tions are given ito a bank in which a draft is deposited to "collect and credit," the bank should place the deposit to the credit of the -de- positor, and if it credits the indorser ther-efc-r it is liable. Long 11. Bank of Commerce, (Ky. (1897) 38 S. W. Rep.' -886. Diligence in ■Making Inquiries for Draft Not Heard From. — Louisville Second Nat. Bank-w. Merchants' Nat.- Bank, m Ky. 936, 98 Am. St. Rep. 439, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. or Law (2d ed.) 805. Must Act in Good Faith. — 'In making -collec- tions a bank"must act-in good faith. Dern jo. Kellogg,. 54 Neb. 560. 505 606-814 BANKS AND BANKING. Vol. III. 606. note i. 807. 808. 809. (2) Duty as to Presentment, Demand, Protest, and Notice. — See To Whom Notice of Nonpayment Must Be Given. — See notes I, 2. (5) Liability for Conduct of Notary. — See note 3. (6) Liability for Acts of Correspondent Bank — (b) Selection of Corre- spondent Bank. — See notes 2, 3. 8 IO. (c) Default of Correspondent Bank — View that Forwarding Bank Is Besponsible for Default of Correspondent. — See note I. 812. See note 1. View that Collecting Bank Is Liable Directly to Depositor. — See note 3. 814. c. Measure of Damages for Negligence. — See notes 2, 3, 4. Liability for Breach of Warranty. — A bank does not, by collecting a draft attached to a bill of lading, make itself liable for a breach of warranty of the quality of the merchandise represented by the bill of lading. Commerce Milling, etc., Co. v. Morris, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 553- 800. 1. Presentment, Demand, Etc. — West- ern Wheeled Scraper Co. v. Sadilek, 50 Neb. 105, 61 Am. St. Rep. 550; Hitchcock v. Suspen- sion Bridge Bank, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 458 ; Morris v. Union Nat. Bank, 13 S. Dak. 329. See also Aransas Pass First Nat. Bank v. St. Charles Sav. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 768. And see the title Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, 410. 2 et seq. 807. 1. The Bank Must Notify the Principal or holder of the note. Sprague v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 63 Kan. 12. Bank Required to Notify All Parties. — Citi- zens Nat. Bank v. Greensburg Third Nat. Bank, 19 Ind. App. 69. 2. Special Contract. — Howard v. Bank of Metropolis, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 342. 808. 3. Bank Liable Only for Care in Selection of Notary. — Manning First Nat. Bank v. Ger- man Bank, 107 Iowa 545, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 808. 809. 2. Due Care Requisite in Selecting Cor- respondent. — Herider v. Phoenix Loan Assoc, 82 Mo. App. 427; Louisville Second Nat. Bank v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 11 1 Ky. 930, 98 Am. St. Rep. 439. 3. Selection of Drawee Bank as Agent. — Min- neapolis Sash, etc., Co. v. Metropolitan Bank, 76 Minn. 143, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 809 ; Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. Sadilek, 50 Neb. 105, 61 Am. St. Rep. 550; Givan 'v. Alexandria Bank, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 923. See also Corsicana First Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 318. In the Absence of Instructions to select the drawee bank as agent, such an act is negligent. Chicago First Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 123 Mich. 336. Where the Depositor Had Knowledge that the remitting bank would send the paper for col- lection directly to the drawee bank and then availed himself of such collection facilities the remitting bank is not liable. Wilson v. Carlin- ville Nat. Bank, 187 111. 222. A Banking Custom may be shown to give to a bank the right to send an unindorsed check di- rectly to the drawee bank. Kershaw v. Ladd, 34 Oregon 375. 506 810. 1. Forwarding Bank Liable for Corre- spondent Bank. — Girard First Nat. Bank v. Craig, 3 Kan. App. 166, distinguishing Linds- borg Bank v. Ober, 31 Kan. 599, cited to the contrary proposition in 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 812; Kirkham v. Bank of America, 165 N. Y. 132; National Revere Bank v. National Bank of Republic, 172 N. Y. 102; Morris v. Allegheny First Nat. Bank, 201 Pa. St. 160 ; Schumacher v. Trent, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 17. See also Bedell v. Harbine Bank, 62 Neb. 339. But see Kelley v. Phenix Nat. Bank, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 496, wherein the circumstances were held to constitute the collecting bank the agent of the holder. 812. 1. Limitation of Liability by Express Agreement. — Where the depositor of a draft for collection ordered the bank of deposit to send the draft to a certain bank for identifi- cation of indorsement the forwarding bank is not liable for loss of the draft. Davis v. Fresno First Nat. Bank, 118 Cal. 600. As to the Effect of Commercial Usage. — A for- warding bank is bound by the usages and cus- toms of banks at the place of collection, re- gardless of knowledge of such usages. Jeffer- son County Sav. Bank v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 98 Tenn. 337. 3. Correspondent Bank Liable Directly to De- positor — United States. — Holder v. Western German Bank, 132 Fed. Rep. 187 (by interpre- tation given to special contract of collection). Alabama. — Eufaula Grocery Co. v. Missouri Nat. Bank, 118 Ala. 413, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 809-813. Illinois. — Wilson v. Carlinville Nat. Bank, 187 111. 224, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 8io, 812; Waterloo Milling Co. v. Kuenster, 158 111. 259, 40 Am. St. Rep. 156- Indiana. — Irwin v. Reeves Pulley Co., 20 Ind. App. in, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 810, but adopting the view stated on page 812. Kentucky. — Louisville Second Nat. Bank v. Merchants Nat. Bank, m Ky. 930, 98 Am. St. Rep. 439. Massachusetts. — Lord v. Hingham Nat. Bank, 186 Mass. 161. Tennessee. — Givan v. Alexandria Bank, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 923. 814. 2. Measure of Damages. — People's Nat. Bank v. Brogden, (Tex. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 1098, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 814. Agents. — The bank receiving paper for col- lection is liable for the defalcation of its agent. Vol. III. BANKS AND BANKING. 815-818 815. d. Title to Paper Deposited for Collection — (i) As Be- tween Bank and Depositor. — See note I. 816. (2) Where the Rights of Third Parties Intervene — (a) Generally. — See note 1. (b) Paper Indorsed "For Collection." — See note 2. 817. (e) Effect of Crediting Paper when Received as Cash. — See note I . 818. (d) Insolvency of Forwarding Bank — bb. View that Collecting Bank Is En- titled to Credit on Past Indebtedness. — See note I . State Nat. Bank v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 214. §14. 3. Amount of Note Measures Loss Prima Facie.— Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.*;. Conti- nental Nat. Bank, 74 Mo. App. 633 ; National Revere Bank v. National Bank of Republic, 172 N. Y. 102; Howard v. Bank of Metropolis, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 342 ; Merchants State Bank v. State Bank, 94 Wis. 444. 4. Plaintiff Must Make Out Probable Case to Recover Whole Amount. — See Dern v. Kellogg, 54 Neb. 560. 815. 1. Richardson v. New Orleans Coffee Co., 43 C. C. A. 583 ; American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Thuemmler, 94 111. App. 622, reversed 195 111. 90, 88 Am. St Rep. 177; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, in Iowa 215, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 815; Pickering v. Cameron, 103 Iowa 186; Blair v. Hill, 165 N. Y. 672, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 33; Oppenheim v. West Side Bank, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 722. Recovery of Money Paid to Collecting Bank under Mistake of Fact. — Supporting Canal Bank v. Albany Bank, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 287, stated in the original note, see Onondaga County Sav. Bank v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 64 Fed. Rep. 703, distinguished in U. S. v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 70 Fed. Rep. 232. Money paid to the collecting bank under mistake of fact may be recovered from such bank. Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 182 111. 367, 74 Am. St. Rep. 180. Bank Cannot Recover on Note Assigned to It for Collection Only. — Ft. Worth First Nat. Bank v, Payne, (Ky. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 736. Deposit of a Forged Check for Collection. — Where the plaintiff deposited for collection a check on which the payee's name was forged and it was remitted to a correspondent bank and paid, and afterwards the forgery discov- ered, it was held that the plaintiff was indebted to the receiving bank in the amount of the check. Green v. Purcell Nat. Bank, 1 Indian Ter. 270. See further the title Bills of Ex- change and Promissory Notes, 502. 1, *. 816. 1. Where Money Is Innocently Advanced to Bank on Credit of Draft Received for Collection. — It is held in Nebraska that where a bank credits the amount of the remitting bank by the amount of paper sent to it for collection it cannot interpose this credit as an equity in de- fense to an action brought against it by the original holder for the proceeds of collection. Branch v. U. S. National Bank, 50 Neb. 470. 2. Indorsement "For Collection." — Doppelt v. National Bank of Republic, 74 111. App. 429, affirmed 175 111. 432; Branch v. U. S. National Bank, 50 Neb. 470 ; National Citizens' Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 119 N. Car. 307; Boykin v. Fayetteville Bank, 118 N. Car. 566. Check Indorsed " For Deposit." — See Lanter- man v. Travous, 73 111. App. 670, affirmed 174 111. 459 ; American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Loretta Gold, etc., Min. Co., 165 111. 103, 56 Am. St. Rep. 233. 817. 1. Philadelphia v. Eckels, 98 Fed. Rep. 485 ; Dymoch v. Midland Nat. Bank, 67 Mo. App. 97 ; Hendley v. Globe Refinery Co., 106 Mo. App. 20; Armour Packing Co. v. Davis, 118 N. Car. 548; Union Safe Deposit Bank v. Strauch, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 196; Givan v. Alexandria Bank, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 923. Crediting Check Deposited in Bank Where Fay- able. — The auditing of a check deposited in the bank where it is payable amounts to a pay- ment. Bryan v. McKees Rocks First Nat. Bank, 205 Pa. St. 7. See also Bartley v. State, 53 Neb. 310. Title to Check Deposited — Effect of Bank Custom to Credit as Cash. — In Walton v. Riverside Bank, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 304, it was held that a bank had no right to charge back against a customer's account the amount of a check deposited with it and credited as cash, and afterwards lost before presentment. In New Jersey it is held that where a check is indorsed generally by the payee and depos- ited in a bank other than that on which it is drawn, and by that bank credited at once to the depositor as cash, the transaction is in effect a sale of the paper to the bank, not a de- posit for collection ; and where such check is paid by mistake by the bank on which it is drawn, against the instructions of the maker, and the proceeds are remitted to the bank of deposit, the drawee bank has no right of re- covery against the payee. National Bank v. Berrall, 70 N. J. L. 757, 103 Am. St. Rep. 821, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 817, but holding that the language of the text is limited by the force of the words " taken for collection." And in Massachusetts it is held that crediting a depositor's account with a check deposited for collection and afterwards paying checks more than the amount of his deposit without such credit, knowing that the check had been lost in transmission to the collecting bank, amounts to an absolute sale of the check to the bank. Taft v. Quinsigamond Nat. Bank, 172 Mass. 363. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has held that after a bank failed a check un- collected which had been received as cash could be charged back. Staplyton v. Cie Des Phos- phates De France, (C. C. A.) S8 Fed. Rep. 53. Compare Brusegaard v. Ueland, 72 Minn. 283. 818. I. Collecting Bank May Assert Lien or Title Against Depositor. — American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Theummler, 195 111. 90, 88 Am. St. 5°7 819 884 BANKS AND BANKING. Vol. HI. 81,9. «. VjBW.thjit Collecting Bank -Cannot Credit on Past Indebtedness. — See note i. (p.) Title After Collection Completed — aa. JRklatiom of Debtor and Creditor Established. — See notes 2, 3. 821. it. Forwarding Bank Has No Prjsejsrence on Insolvency of Cqu,ECTiNG Bank. — See note I.. „ . , _ „ 8*aa. 3. Deposits— *z. Deposits fop. Specific Purpose— ,(i) In Gen- eral — Bevocability of the Agency. — See note 2. Bank May Not Apply Deposit to Another Purpose. — See note 3. Such Deposits Are Sometimes Termed Special Deposits, — See notes 4 ; 5- 8?3. (3) Deposit of Collateral. — See jioje 2. 834. (4) Deposit to Meet Maturing Indebtedness. — See note 1. (6) Special Deposits for Safe Keeping — Defined. — See note 4. See generally the title Deposit. Rep. .177; JDoppelt v. National Bank of Repub- lic, 1-75 111. 432; '.Gvignon v. Helena First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 145, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 81,8; Winfield Nat. Bank v. McWilliams, 9 Okla. 499, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 818; Studebaker iBr.os. Mfg. Co. v. Sulphur Springs First Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 573. 8,19. 1 . Bights of Collecting Bank No Greater than Those of Forwarding Bank. — Morris v. Alabama Carbon. Co., 139 Ala. 620; Natiqnal Citizens' Bank v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 119 N. Car. 307. Where Collecting Bank Has Notice of Trans- mitting Bank's Want of Title. — Where the col- lecting bank credited an intermediary bank with .the amount of the paper collected and afterwards became insolvent, the intermediary bank was held to be liable to the original for- warding bank. Omaha First Nat. Bank v. Moline -First Nat. Bank, 55 Neb. 303. 2. Belation of Agency Before Collection. — Richardson v. Denegre, 35 C. C. A. 452 ; Rich- ardson v. Louisville Banking Co., (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 442 ; Richardson v. Continental Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 450. 3. After Collection Belation of Debtor and Credi- tor ExiBts. — Richmond First Nat. Bank v. Wil- mington, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 77 Fed. Rep. 40.1 ; Sayles v. Cox, 95 Tenn. 579, 49 Am. St. Rep- 940; Peters Shoe Co. v. Murray, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 259 ; HaUam v. Tillinghast , 1 9 Wash. 20. Where .]the relation of debtor and creditor is established by a custom of previous dealing between the parties, there is no trust relation s.o .as to secure the deposit upon the insol- vency of .the collecting bank. MeCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Yankton Sav. Bank, 15 S. iDak. 196. §21 . 1. Insolvency of Collecting Bank — For- warding Bank a General Creditor. — Union Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 153 Ind. 44; Conti- nental Nat. Bank v. West Point First Nat. Bank, (Miss. 1904) 36 So. Rep. 189. So the holder is a general creditor. Ober, etc.. Co. v. Cochran, 118 Ga. 396. iView that Collecting Bank Is a Trustee. — In support of the general view that the collecting bank is a trustee. Windstanley u. Louisville Second Nat. Bank, 13 Ind. App. 544; Kansas State Bank v. .First State. Bank, 62 Kan. 7,88; Wallace v. Stone, 107 -.Mich. 1.9.0; Midland Nat. Bank v. Brightwell, 148 -Mo. 358, ji Am. St. Rep. 608; .State. v. iBank -oi Commerce, Ai Neb. 181 ; Lapeer First Nat. Bank .v. Sanford, 62 Mo. App. 394. In Piano Mfg. Co. v. Auld, 14 S. .Dak. -512, 86 Am. St. Rep. 769, it .was .held that a trust is impressed on money in the hank, but not -on the general assets of the .bank. §22. 2. McGorray *. Stoekton Say., etc., Soc, 131 Cal. 321. In re Davis, 11.9 Fed. .Rep. 956, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of .Law (2d ed.) 822.; El Paso Nat. Bank ,v. Fuchs, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 34 S. W. Rep. 203. 4. Contingency. — A deposit on a contingency may be received by a bank and not paid out until the happening of contingency. American Nat. Bank v. Presnall, 58 Kan- 69. 5. Preference in Case of Failure of Bank. — Anderson v. Pacific Bank, .112 Cal. 59.8, 53 Am. St. Rep. 228 ; American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Loretta Gold, etc., Min. Co., 1-65 111. 103, 5.6 Am. St. Rep. 233 ; Woodhouse v. .Crandall, 197 111. 1.04; Ryan v. Phillips, .3 Kan. App. 704. The deposit of money in a bank to the ac- count of another, coupled with directions to telegraph the amount to a third bank, creates a special deposit and may be recovered upon the bank's failure. Montagu v. Pacific Bank, 81 Fed. Rep. 602. Where Moneys Not Capable of Identification. — See Lanterman v. Travous, 73 111. App. 670, affirmed 174 111. 459. .§23. 2. Securities Deposited as Collateral. — Dearborn v. Washington Sav. Bank, 13 Wash. 345- A bank receiving notes as collateral is pre- sumed to hold such notes for value. Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. 824. 1. Deposits to Meet Maturing .Indebted- ness. — Mor.eland o. Brown, (C. C. A.) 86 Fed. Rep. 257. A Parol Direction is sufficient to create a special deposit to meet maturing indebtedness. Cambridge First Nat. Bank v. -Hall, 119 Ala. 64. Preference on Insolvency. — In Moore vl Chese- brough, (Iowa 1900) 81 N. W. Rep. 469, it was .held that where money is deposited to pay a mortgage, and the bank applies the money to its own debt and becomes insolvent, the deposit cannot be made a preferred claim, be- cause its .assets have not been augmented. 4. Special Deposit Defined. — -For definitions of 508 Ybl. in. FANKS AND BANKING. 836-831 836. Title to Deposit. — See note 3. Deposits in Particular Cases — As Clerk — As Trustee — As Judge of Probate. — See note 5. (?) General Deports — (*) I» General — Belation Between Bank and General Depositor. — See note 11. 838. The Obligation of the Bank. — See note 3. Set-off. — See note 4. Presumption. — See note 6. 839. interest. — See notes 2, 3. Obligation to Repay Deposits. — See note J. 830. (c) How Transferred and Withdrawn — Bank May Demand Writing. — See note 3. Remittance by Mail. — See note 6. Negligence of Bank. — See note 8. Deposit in Name of Husband and Wife. — See note IO. 831. Deposit by Married Woman. — See note I. a special deposit and a discussion of what con- stitutes a special deposit, see Gerrish v. Mus- kegon Sav. Bank, (Mich. 1004) 100 N. W. Rep. 1000; Blackwell Bank v. Dean, 9 Okla. 626. 826. 3. Title Remains in Depositor, — Nib- lack v. Cosier,- 74 Fed. Rep. 1000 ; Woodhouse v. Crandall, 197 111. 104; Blackwell Bank v. Dean, 9 Okla. 626; Gibson v. Erie, 196 Pa. St. 7. 5. Compare Officer v. Officer, (Iowa 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 826, holding that a bank re- ceiving a deposit from' an executor, knowing it to be such, makes it a special deposit. 11. Relation Between Bank and General De- positor — United States. — Randolph v . Allen, 41 U. S. App. 117; Durkee v. National Bank, 42 C. C. A. 674. Florida. — Camp v. OGala First Nat. Bank, 44 Fla. 497. Illinois. — American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Loretta Gold, etc., Min. Co., 165 111. 103, 56 Am. St. Rep. 233 ; Lanterman v. Travous, 73 111. App. 670, affirming 174 111. 459; Bayor v. American Trust, etc., Bank, 157 III. 62. Indiana. — Union Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Indianapolis Lounge Co., 20 Ind. App. 3.25 ; Hamilton v. Toner, 17 Ind. App. 389, Iowa. — • Mereness v. Charles City First Nat. Bank, 112 Iowa 13, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 826. Missouri. — QuattrOchi v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 89 Mo. App. 500 ; Sharon First Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 102 Mo. App. 357 ; Arnold v. Sedalia Naf. Bank, 100 Mo. App. 474. Nebraska. — Nichols v. State, 46 Neb. 715; Nehawka Bank ii. Ingersoll, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 618'. New Jersey. — Perth Amboy Gaslight Co. v. Middlesex County Bank, 60 N. J. Eq. 84; Campbell v. Watson, 62 N. J. Eq. 396. Oregon. — Shute v. Hinman, 34 Oregon 578. Tennessee. — Williams v. Cox, 97 Tenn. 555; Winslow v. Harriman Iron Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 698. Virginia. — Nolting v. National Bank, 99 Va. 54- 828. 3. A Bank's Obligation is to pay the depositor's checks to the payee or one holding tnrough'the payee. United Security L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Central Nat. Bank, 185. Pa. St. 586. See also Goshorn v. People's Nat. Bank, 32 Ind. App. 428, 102 Am. St. Rep. 248. Knowledge that a Draft Had Been Drawn on the Depositor's Account is no excuse for failure to pay a deposit on demand of the depositor. Nehawka Bank v. Ingersoll,. (Neb. 190*2) 89 N.-W. Rep. 618. 4. Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 90 Md. 94, 78 Am. St. Rep. 431, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 828; Winslow v. Harriman Iron Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 698. 6. Deposit Deemed to Be General. — Meadow- croft v. People, 163 111. 56, 54 Am. St. Rep. 447; Nichols v. State, 46 Neb. 715; Blackwell Bank v. Dean, 9 Okla. 630, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 828 ; Shute v. Hinman, 34 Oregon 578. The Burden of Proving that a Deposit Is Special is on the depositor, as against the ba,nk. Sharon First Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 102 Mo. App. 357. 829. 2. Interest. — American Trust, etc., Co. v. Boone, 102 Ga. 202, 66 Am. St, Rep. 167 ; Bank of Commerce v. Harrison,. (N. Mex. 1 901) 66 Pac. Rep. 460. 3. James Reynolds Elevator Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 55 N. Y. App, Div. .. Where a Bank Suspends, no demand is neces- sary, and interest begins to run on the deposit from the time of the suspension. Ex p. Stock- man, (S. Car. 1904) 48 S. E. Rep. 736. 5. Bank's Obligation to Repay Money Deposited. — Hutchinson First Nat. Bank v. Kansas Grain Co., 60 Kan. 30. 830. 3. Bank May Require Written Authority. — Hamilton v. Toner, 17 Ind. App. 389. 6. McBee v. Purcell Nat. Bank, 1 Indian Ter. 288. 8. Negligence of Bank. — Payment of a forged check or a check with a forged indorsement is deemed to be negligence rendering the bank liable. Henderson Trust Co. u. Ragan, (Ky. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 848; Kenneth Invest. Co. v. National Bank of Republic, 103 Mo. App. 613; Morris v. Beaumont Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 36. A bank paying out deposits after notice of a suit does so at its peril. Pearce v. Dill, 149 Ind. 136. 10. See Matter of Brown, 113 Iowa 351. Joint Deposit of Father and Daughter. — See Wood v. Zornstorff, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 538. 831. 1. A Deposit by the Husband of the 509 831-832 BANKS AND BANKING. Vol. III. 831. Form of Check Should Conform to Terms of Deposit. — See note 3. Conflicting Claimants. — See note 5- When Bank Has No Notice of Assignment. — See note 7. (d) Deposits by Trustees, Agents, and Officials — Presumption of Ownership. — See note 8. 832. How the Presumption Is Overthrown. — See notes I, 2. Wife's Separate Funds in the name of the wife may, in Texas, be drawn by the husband, and the bank will not be liable for conversion unless it colludes with the husband in the con- version. Coleman ■ 6. (g) Necessity of Demand. — See note I . When Demand Dispensed' With. — See notes 3, 4. 4. The Bank's Books of Acpoumt. — See note 1. Correction of Errors — Acquiescence. — See note 2. Depositor Must TTse Due Diligence. — See note 3. §36. 4. Set-off Allowed on Insolvency of De- positor. — Georgia Seed Co. v. Talmadge, 96 Ga. 254 ; Stolze v. State Bank,. 67 Minn. 172; Sweet- ser v. People's Bank, 69 Minn. 196 ; Hodgin v. Peoples' Nat. Bank, 124 N. Car. 540; Nashville Trust Co. v. Nashville Fourth Nat. Bank, 91 Tenn. 336 ; Winslow v. Harriman Iron Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 698 ; Neely v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App.. 513- But in Missouri even upon the insolvency of the depositor the rule does not permit a set-off until the debt is due. Homer v. National Bank of Commerce, 140 Mo. 225. A Bank Is Not Liable for Damages for pro- testing a check of a depositor, when that de- positor is insolvent and owes to the bank a larger amount than he then has on deposit. Owen v. American Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 988- A Deposit by an Agent in His Own Name of money of his principal' may be set off by a bank which does not know the real nature o£ the deposit. Kimrnel v. Bean, 68 Kan. 598. 837. 2. Partnership Indebtedness — Deposits of Member on Individual Account, — Hodgin v. Peoples' Nat. Bank, 124 N. Car. 540. Compare Owsley v. Cumberland Bank, 66 S. W. Rep. 33, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1726. So a Bank Cannot Set Off Firm Deposits against the indebtedness of an individual member. Hodgin v. Peoples' Nat. Bank, 124 N. Car. 540. 4. No Set-off Against Trust Deposits. — U. S. v. National Bank, 73 Fed. Rep. 379 ; Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore, (C. C. A.) 79 Fed. Rep. 705; American Trust, etc., Co. v. Boone, 102 Ga. 202, 66 Am. St. Rep. 167 ; Clem- mer v. Drovers' Nat. Bank, 157 111. 206; Smith ir. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 107 Iowa 620; State Bank v. McCabe, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 20 ; Mayer v. Citizens Bank, 86 Mo. App. 422 ; Nehawka Bank v. IngersoII, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 618; Globe Sav. Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 64 Neb. 413 ; Hodgin v. People's Nat. Bank, 125 N. Car. 503; Custer County v. Walker, 10 S. Dak. 594; Akin v . Williamson, (Tenn. Ch. 1895) 35 S. W. Rep. S69. put in England it has been held that in the absence of fraud a banker may set off what is due to a depositor on one account against what is due from him on another, although what is due to the depositor may in fact belong to other persons. New South Wales Bank v. Goulburn Valley Butter Co., (1902) A. C. 543, 71 L. J P. C. 112. 838. 3. Deposit of Guarantor — No Set-off Before Accrual of Liability. — Mt. Sterling Nat. Bank v. Green, 99 Ky. 262. The same rule applies to the indorser of a. check. O'Grady v. Stotts City Bank, 106 Mo. App. 366. 4. Deposits Received After Indebtedness Incurred — Cockrill v. Joyce, 62 Ark. 216. 5. Duty of Bank to Apply Deposits — Sureties and Indorsers. — Lock Haven First Nat. Bank v. Peltz, 176 Pa. St. 513, 53 Am. St. Rep. 686. 6. Lock Haven First Nat. Bank v. Peltz, 176 Pa. St. 513, 53 Am. St. Rep. 686; Alexandria Bank v. Turney, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 762. 839. 1. Demand Necessary Before Bight of Action Accrues. — Tobias v. Morris, 126 Ala. 535 ; Col ton v. Drovers' Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 90 Md. 90, 78 Am. St. Rep. 431, citmg 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 838; Sickles v. Herold, 149 N. Y. 332. Statute of Limitations. — Schinotti v. Whitney, 130 Fed. Rep. 780. Nature of the Demand. — The presentation of a check for a greater amount than is on de- posit is insufficient as a demand necessary to support an action for money on deposit. Au- rora Nat. Bank v. Dils, 18 Ind. App. 319. 3. Where Bank Suspends. — Schinotti v. Whit- ney, 130 Fed. Rep. 780 ; Wheeler v. Commercial Bank, 5 Idaho 15; Meadowcroft v. People, 163 111. 56, 54 Am. St. Rep. 447 ; Arnold v. Hart, 176 III. 442; White v. Meadowcroft, 91 111. App. 293 ; Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 90 Md. 85, 78 Am. St. Rep. 431, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 839 ; Kilby v. Carthage First Nat. Bank, (Supm. Ct. Spec T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 370; Ex p. Stock- man, (S. Car. 1904) 48 S. E. Rep. 736. The Appointment of a Temporary Receiver does not denote suspension sufficient to relieve from the necessity of demand. Sickles v. Herold, 149 N. Y. 332. 4. Where Demand Would Be Futile. — It has been held that where deposits have been mis- applied ab initio, no demand is necessary. James Reynolds Elevator Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 1. 840. 1. Quattrochi v. Farmers, etc., Bank, 89 Mo. App. 500 ; Andrews v. State Bank, 9 N. Dak. 325. 2. Kemble 0. National Bank, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 544. 3. Depositor Must Use Due Diligence. — Cole v. Charles City Nat. Bank, 114 Iowa 635, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 840, and holding further that the question whether 512 Vol. III. BANKS AND BANKING. 841-845 841. Admissibility as Evidence. — See note I. 5. Loans and Discounts — The Term " Discounting " Considered. — See note 2. 843. IV. Officers and Employees — 2. General Principles as to Authority and Liability — Presumed Knowledge of Officers. — See note g. 844. Acts Within Scope of Usage and Duty Bind Bank. — See note I. 845. Eesponsibility for Abuse of Powers. — See note I. Notice to Officer Is Notice to Bank. — See note 3. due diligence has been exercised is one of fact for the jury. Ten Days' Delay cannot be said to establish negligence. Kenneth Invest. Co. v, National Bank of Republic, 103 Mo. App. 613. 841. v 1. Admissibility as Evidence. — See Arnold v. Hart, 176 111. 442 (depositor's pass- book) ; Globe Sav. Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 64 Neb. 413. And see the title Documentary Evidence. 2. Discounting — What Is Meant by the Term. — In Kentucky it is held that deducting the in- terest to maturity from the face of a note at the time of execution amounts to u discount. Eastin v. Cincinnati Third Nat. Bank, 102 Ky. 64. The rediscounting by a bank of its bills re- ceivable is not a borrowing of money, but is more in the nature of a sale. U. S. National Banka. Little Rock First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 79 Fed. Rep. 296. See further Discount. 843. 9. James Clark Co. v. Colton, 91 Md. 195; Eads v. Orcutt, 79 Mo. App. 511; Wolfe v. Parkersburg Second Nat. Bank, 54 W. Va. 693, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 843. 844. 1. Alabama. — Birmingham First Nat. Bank v. Newport First Nat. Bank, 116 Ala. 520. California. — Abbott v. Jack, 136 Cal. 510; Burnell v. San Francisco Sav. Union, 136 Cal. 499. Indiana. — Hawkins v. New York Fourth Nat. Bank, 150 Ind. 125, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 843, 844; Indianapolis First Nat. Bank v. New, 146 Ind. 411. Indian Territory. — Duncan First Nat. Bank v. Anderson, (Indian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 693- Missouri. — Hill v. Seneca Bank, 87 Mo. App. 590; Roe v. Versailles Bank, 167 Mo. 406. New Hampshire. — Hanson v. Heard, 69 N. H. 190. Oklahoma. — Johnston Fife Hat Co. v. Na- tional Bank, 4 Okla. 17. Rhode Island. — Ellis v. Woonsocket First Nat. Bank, 22 R. I. 565. Apparent Authority. — A bank is liable for fraud and embezzlement by its cashier while acting within the scope of his apparent duty and according to the general course of business. Goshorn v. People's Nat. Bank, 32 Ind. App. 428, 102 Am. St. Rep. 248. Irregular Acts of Officers — Declarations. — American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133; Bullard v. Madison Bank, 121 Ga. 527. See also Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Seymour, 71 Minn. 81. When Payment to Officer Binds Bank. — Pay- ment to a bank's president outside of the usual course of business will not bind the bank if the bank never received the payment. Tulley v. Citizen's State Bank, 18 Ind. App, 24c 1 Supp, 8, of 1,-33 5 J 3 Authority of a Teller to Discount Notes may be shown by proof of his acting in that capacity on previous occasions and of ratification of such acts by the bank. Iowa Nat. Bank v. Sherman, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 12. Offer of Reward, — The president of a bank has authority to offer a reward for a defaulting teller. Minneapolis Bank v. Griffin, 168 111. 314- Ultra Vires Acts, such as representations by a bank that an insurance company had a certain amount of capital stock paid up, do not bind the bank. Hindman v. Louisville First Nat. Bank, 86 Fed. Rep. 1013. See generally the title Ultra Vires. Contract for Attorney's Services. — The presi- dent has no ex-officio power to bind the bank for the services of an attorney. Pacific Bank v. Stone, 121 Cal. 202. Offering Usurious Interest. — A cashier has no authority to offer usurious interest on a de- posit. Hanson v. Heard, 69 N. H. 190. 845. 1. Officers Liable to Bank for Abuse of Powers. — Commercial Bank v. Chatfield, 121 Mich. 641 ; Seventeenth Ward Bank v. Smith, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 259; Killen u. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546. See also Hanna v. Lyon, 179 N. Y. 107. Liability to Depositors. — Stone v. Rottman, 183 Mo. 552 ; Campbell v. Watson, 62 N. J. Eq. 396; Tate v. Bates, 118 N. Car. 287, 54 Am. St. Rep. 719. Directors who receive deposits after known insolvency are individually liable to depositors. Cassidy v. Uhlmann, 170 N. Y. 505. Necessity of Showing Fraud. — Where there is no statute making directors liable for de- posits in an insolvent bank in order to recover the deposits it must be shown that the deposits were induced by the fraudulent conduct of the directors. Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98. 3. Notice to President. — For cases wherein notice to the president was held to be notice to the bank, see Louisville Trust Co. v. Louis- ville, etc., R. Co., 43 U. S. App. 550 ; Ditty v. Dominion Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 75 Fed. Rep. 769 ; Campbell v. Denver First Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. 177; Wilson v. Pauly, 37 U. S. App. 642, 72 Fed. Rep. 129. Notice to the Cashier is notice to the bank. Niblack v. Cosier, 74 Fed. Rep. 1000, affirmed (C. C. A.) 80 Fed. Rep. 596; Citizens' Sav. Banka. Walden, (Ky. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 9531 Grant County Deposit Bank v. Points, (Ky. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 662 ; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Loyd, 89 Mo. App. 262 ; Iowa Nat. Bank u. Sherman, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 12. See also Leonard v. Latimer, 67 Mo. App. 138.^ Notice to the Teller under direction of the cashier of the nature of certain collaterals will bind the bank. Zeis v. Potter, 44 C. C. A. 665. Hew ?%X Notice to Director Ii Notice to Bank, 846 -849 BANKS AND BANKING. Vol. III. 846. See note i. 847. Contracts by Officer in His Own Interest. — See note I . V. Insolvency and Dissolution — 1. What Constitutes Insolvency. — See note 2. 2. Contracts and Deposits Pending Insolvency. — See note 4. 849. 3. Assignments — Receiverships — Eeceivers. — See note 1. — See Home Sav., etc., Bank u. Peoria Agri- cultural, etc., Soc, 206 111. 9, 99 Am. St. Rep. 132; Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399 ; Boston Commercial Bank v. Heppes, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 447 ; Spring City Bank v. Rhea County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 442. §46. 1. Facts Must Be Within Sphere of Officer's Duty. — American Surety Co. v. Pauly, L70 U. S. 133; Jones v. Lincoln First Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 912. See also Overton Bank v. Thompson, (C. .C. A.) 118 Fed. Rep. 798, holding that a cashier deal- ing with the bank in his individual interest cannot charge the bank with his uncommuni- cated knowledge of facts showing want of title ; Brady v. Mt. Morris Bank, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 212, holding that notice possessed by a cashier of an infirmity in a certificate of stock did not bind the bank.. §47. 1. The Cashier Cannot Make a Loan to Himself. — German Sav. Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 122 Iowa 737. Under the Wisconsin statutes the cashier can- not make a loan to himself without the author- ity of directors and stockholders, but with their consent such a loan can be made. Barth v. Koetting, 99 Wis. 242. Individual Transactions of Cashier for His Own Benefit. — A cashier of a bank -who is also a director of a manufacturing company is not, in making false statements concerning the finan- cial condition of the company in order to de- fraud the bank, an agent of the bank so as to effect the validity of its claim against the company. Hadden v. Dooley, 63 U. S. App. 173- A cashier under his general authority has no right to issue drafts of the bank for himself or for his private business. Mendel v. Boyd, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 493. The fact that the cashier is personally in- terested is sufficient to put the creditor upon inquiry of the cashier's authority. Hier v. Miller, 68 Kan. 258. In such a transaction the knowledge of the cashier cannot be imputed to the bank. Cen- tral Bank v. Thayer, 184 Mo. 61. But it has been held that where a cashier issues a draft to his individual creditor and the draft is paid, the amount so paid cannot be recovered by the bank if it is shown that such was the custom of the bank. Campbell v. Na- tional Broadway Bank, (C. C. A.) 130 Fed. Rep. 699. 2. What Constitutes Insolvency. — A bank is insolvent when it is unable to meet the ordi- nary demands against it in the usual and ordi- nary course of business. Eads u. Orcutt, 79 Mo. App. 511; Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98, holding further that an act of insolvency takes place when the condition is demonstrated and the bank has actually failed to meet some of its obligations. 4. Deposits Fending Insolvency — Title Remains in Depositor. — Hallett v. Fish, 120 Fed. Rep. 9S8, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 847; Richardson v. Olivier, 44 C. C. A. 468 ; Richardson v. New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co., 42 C. C. A. 619; Quin v. Earle, 95 Fed. Rep. 728 ; Higgins v. Haydeu, 53 Neb. 61; Harris v. Johnson City First Nat. Bank, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 1084. Depositor Must Identify Securities or Their Proceeds. — The deposit may be recovered if it can be followed and if it augmented the assets of the bank. Perth Amboy Gas Light Co. v. Middlesex County Bank, 60 N. J. Eq. 84; Wil- liams v. Cox, 99 Tenn. 403. Responsibility of Officer Receiving Deposit. — As to the civil and criminal liability, under the statutes of the various states, of officers and directors who receive deposits with knowledge of the insolvency of the bank, see Lanterman v. Travous, 73 111. App. 670, affirmed 174 111. 459; Brown v. People, 173 111. 34; Forbes v. Mohr, 69 Kan. 342 ; State v. Tomblin, 57 Kan. 841 ; Ashley v. Frame, 4 Kan. App. 265, reversed 59 Kan. 477 ; State v. Clements, 82 Minn. 434 ; Baxter v . Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 ; Cassidy V. Uhlmann, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 205, affirmed 170 N. Y. 505; Townsend v. Williams, 117 N. Car. 330 ; Showalter u. Cox, 97 Tenn. 547 ; Friberg v. Cox, 97 Tenn. 550 ; Klepper v. Cox, 97 Tenn. 534, 56 Am. St. Rep. 823 ; Bruner v. Johnson City First Nat. Bank, 97 Tenn. 540 ; Miller v. Howard, 95 Tenn. 407 ; Mallon v. Hyde, 76 Fed. Rep. 388 (under the Washington statute) ; Killen o. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546; State v. Shove, 96 Wis. 1,-65 Am. St. Rep. 17. A Depositor May by His Acts Affirm the Deposit or obligation made upon the eve of suspension. Davis v. Butters Lumber Co., 132 N. Car. 233. So a depositor by filing his account with a receiver in insolvency of a bank waives his right to rescind the deposit upon the ground of fraud in receiving the deposit after known insolvency. Pott v. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535, 57 Am. St. Rep. 415. Trust Deposits received when a bank is in- solvent may be recovered while in the hands of the receiver. Philadelphia v. Eckels, 98 Fed. Rep. 48s. Payments to a Depositor During a Run on the Bank, the cashier believing that sufficient funds were on hand to satisfy the depositors, cannot be recovered by the receiver. Stone v. Jenison, in Mich. 592. 849. 1. Title of Receivers. — A receiver holds the assets of an insolvent bank to secure the claims of creditors and depositors of that bank. State v. Hemingford Bank, 58 Neb. 818. A receiver is not a bona fide purchaser of the bank assets. Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc., 90 Md. 85, 78 Am. St. Rep. 43i. Appointment of Receivers, — In Dickerson v. 5'4 Vol. III. BANKS AND BANKING — BARN. 85© 856 850. 5. Forfeiture — violations of Charter. — See note 6. 851. Forfeiture Available to State Only. — See note I. [BANQUETTE. — See note la.] BAB,. — See note 4. 852. BARGAIN. — See note 3. 855. BARGE. — See note 1. 856. BARN. — See note 2. Cass County Bank, 95 Iowa 392, it was held that if creditors acquiesce in the appointment of a receiver for two or three months they are estopped , thereafter to question the legality of the appointment. The Receiver May Compromise a Doubtful Claim against a stockholder's double liability under the Nebraska statute. State v. German Sav. Bank, 6s Neb. 416. Right of Set-off. — In an action by a receiver to collect money due to an insolvent bank, the defendant may set off a claim which he has against the bank. Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 90 Md. 85, 78 Am. St. Rep. 431; Mechanics' Bank v . Stone, 115 Mich. 648; Becker */. Seymour, 71 Minn. 394; Bernstein v. Coburn, 49 Neb. 734. And such set-off may be permitted although the indebtedness due to the bank had not ma- tured at the time when the bank failed. Jack v. Klepser, 196 Pa. St. 187, 79 Am. St. Rep. 699. See also Thompson v. Union Trust Co., 130 Mich. 508, 97 Am. St. Rep. 494. ' But a debtor to a defunct bank cannot set off a claim against the bank which he secured after the insolvency of the bank. Dyer v. Sebrell, 135 Cal. 597. And it has been held that a debtor of an in- solvent bank cannot set off a check delivered to him against such bank before the assignment. Greenebaum -v. American Trust, etc., Bank, 70 111. App. 407. Damages for Loss of Rent, by reason of fail- ure to carry out the lease of the premises, can- not, it has been held, be set off by the lessor of a banking house against a note which he owes to the bank. McGraw v. Union Trust Co., (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 390. 850. 6. An Act of Insolvency or failure to comply with the insolvency laws is ground for decreeing a forfeiture in Louisiana. State v. Bank of Commerce, 49 La. Ann. 1060. 851. 1. Fargason v. Oxford Mercantile Co., 78 Miss. 65. In. To banquette a street means to con- struct on one side or on both sides of it a sidewalk such as will conform with the city ordi- nances oa the subject. Redersheimer v. Brun- ing, 113 La. 343. 4. Act of Congress — Bar Iron — Iron in Bars. — Milne v. U. §., 115 Fed. Rep. 410; Moorhead v. U. S., 127 Fed. Rep. 779. The Terms " Barred and Barricaded " in an or- dinance prohibiting gambling in places barred and barricaded from the police do not include an ordinary private residence or room, where doors are sometimes locked or bolted in the ordinary method. Matter of Ah Cheung, 136 Cal. 678. 852. 3. Statute of Frauds. — The word bar- gain is broad enough in its meaning to include " contract " in an answer setting up the statute of frauds to a bill for specific performance. Koenig v. Dohm, 209 111. 468. 855. 1. A Scow is a barge within the meaning of the New York statute classifying vessels for the payment of different rates of wharfage. The Scow No. 15, 88 Fed. Rep. 305, affirmed (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 1008. 85tf. 3. Arson. — Saylor v. Com., (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 615. Wills. — The phrase " all the contents of barons," as used in a will, does not include cotton stored in a house built and primarily used for the shelter of carriages. The court defined barns as in the original text. Johnson v. Johnson, 48 S. Car. 408. 515 BARRATRY. 861. II. In Criminal Law — 3. Who May Commit — Attorney at Law.— See note 6. 862. III. In Maritime Law — 1. The Essentials — a. The Wrongful Act. — See note i. b. The Wrongful Intent. — See note 3. Acts with Fraudulent Intent towards the Owner. — See note 9. 863. Acts of Known Illegality. — See note 3. Criminal Acts Intended to Advance Owner's Interest. — See note 4. 3. By Whom It May Be Committed — General Rule — The Owner. — See 866. note 6. 867. Where Master Is Owner. — See note I. 868. BARRICADE. — See note 3. BARROOM. — See note 4. 869. BASE BALL. — See note 3. BASE FEE. — See note 4. 861. 6. Underthe Texas Statute evidence that an attorney did not seek or obtain employment by personal solicitation, and did not before employment directly or indirectly give or loan money to the client to induce his employment, is insufficient to show barratry. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 6. Bights of Grandchildren. — See notes 7, 10. (3) Wife and Children as Joint Beneficiaries. — See note 2. 2. In Mutual Benefit Certificates — a. General Doctrine — A Mere Expectancy. — See note 2. citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987. 9S7. 2. When Proceeds Go to Personal Repre- sentative. — ■ Franklin L. Ins. Co. v. Galligan, 7 1 Ark. 295, 100 Am. St. Rep. 73, citing Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987 ; Millard v. Brayton, 177 Mass. 533; U. S. Casualty Co. v. Kacer, 169 Mo. 301, 92 Am. St. Rep. 641, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 987; Brown v. Murray, 54 N. J. Eq. 594; John Hancock Mitt. L. Ins. Co. v. Lawder, 22 R. I. 416. See also Sterrit v. Lee, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 324, where the insured, having paid the premiums and obtained an assignment from the administrator of the deceased beneficiary, was compelled to refund the proceeds to such administrator. 4. Proceeds Belong to Devisees in Case of Will. — Laughlin v. Norcross, 97 Me. 33. 5. Preston v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 95 Md. 101, quoting 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 987 ; Gass v, U. S. Life Ins. Co., 4 Ohio Dec. 234, 3 Ohio N. P. 216, holding that the executors of a deceased beneficiary had such an interest in the policy as to defeat the in- sured's attempt to require the insurer to declare that the policy had inured to him. 988. 1. An assignment by a wife of a policy payable to her, but in case of her death before that of the insured then to her children, is defeated upon her death before that of the insured. Stevens v. Germania L. Ins. Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 156. But on the death of the insured before that of the wife the title of the wife's assignor becomes absolute though the children did not join in the assignment. Herr v. Reinoehl, 209 Pa. St. 483. In Colorado an assignment of such a policy by the wife does not affect the vested interest of the children therein. Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Hagerman, (Colo. 1903) 72 Pac. Rep. 889. 4. When Children's Interest Becomes Fixed. — Smith v. Mtna. L. Ins. Co., 68 N. H. 405 ; jEtna Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Clough, 68 N. H. 298; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Marshall, 178 N. Y. 468. 5. Roquemore v. Dent, 135 Ala. 292, 93 Am. St. Rep. 33; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Marshall, 178 N. Y. 468. 6. D'Arcy v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 108 Tenn. 567- 7. In Other Jurisdictions the same rule is applied. Voss v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 119 Mich. 161 ; Glenn v. Burns, 100 Tenn. 295. 10. In Other Jurisdictions the New York rule is followed. Elgar v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc, 113 Wis. 90; D'Arcy -a. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 108 Tenn. 567. 989. 2. Clark v. Dawson, 195 Pa. St. 137; Bickel v. Bickel, (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 315, holding that the second wife of the in- sured is not entitled to share in the proceeds of the policy. Provision for Beversion — Construction of Policy. — The proceeds of a policy providing for pay- ment to the wife and children of the insured, " or, if they are not living " at his death, then to his personal representative, are not payable to such personal representative if either the wife or any of the children are living at the insured's death. Fish v. Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co., 186 Mass. 358. See also Clark v. Dawson, 195 Pa. St. 137. 990. 2. Beneficiary Has No Vested Bight in Mutual Benefit Certificate. — Fischer v. Fischer, 99 Tenn. 629, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 990. Seasons for Bule, — Schoenau v. Grand Lodge, etc., 85 Minn. 349. See to the Same Effect — United States. — Lamb v. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Assoc, 106 Fed. Rep. 637. California. — Supreme Council, etc., v. Geh- renbeck, 124 Cal. 43. Colorado. — Overhiser v. Overhiser, 14 Colo. App. 1. But see Hill v. Groesbeck, 29 Colo. 161 ; Love v. Clune, 24 Colo. 237. Connecticut. — Masonic Mut. Ben. Assoc, u. Tolles, 70 Conn. 537. Illinois. — Voigt v. Kersten, 164 111. 314; Kirkpatrick v. Modern Woodmen of America, 103 111. App. 468; McGrew v. McGrew, 190 111. 604; Peterson v. Gibson, 191 111. 365, 85 Am. St. Rep. 263 ; Delaney v. Delaney, 175 111. 187, affirming 70 111. App. 130. Indiana. — Bunyan v. Reed, (Ind. App. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 1002. Iowa. — Belknap v. Johnston, 114 Iowa 265; White v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 124 Iowa 293; Schmidt v. Northern L. Assoc, 112 Iowa 41. Michigan. — Allgemeiner Arbeiter Bund v. Adamson, 132 Mich. 86. Minnesota. — Gruber v. Grand Lodge, etc., 79 Minn. 59. Mississippi. — Carson v. Vicksburg Bank, 75 Miss. 167, 65 Am. St. Rep. 596. Missouri. — St. Louis Police Relief Assoc, v. Strode, 103 Mo. App. 694; Supreme Council, etc., v. Kacer, 96 Mo. App. 93 ; Callies v. Mod- ern Woodmen of America, 98 Mo. App. 521 ; Grand Lodge, etc., v. Reneau, 73 Mo. App. 402. Nebraska. — Fisher v. Donovan, 57 Neb. 361 ; Warner v. Modern Woodmen of America, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 397; Woodmen Ace. Assoc. 11. Hamilton, (Neb. 1904) 97 N. W. Rep. 1017. New Hampshire. — Supreme Council, etc., v. Adams, 68 N. H. 236. New Jersey. — Spengler v. Spengler, €5 N. J. Eq. 176; Golden Star Fraternity v. Martin, 59 N. J. L. 207. New For*. — Fink v. Delaware, etc., Mut 534 Vol. nr. BENEFICIARIES. 991-993 991. Grounds of the Doctrine. — See note 2. Charter Prohibiting Change of Beneficiary. — See note 3. Language Construed as Authorizing Change of Beneficiary. — See note 4. Amendment of Fy-laws — Retrospective Operation. — See note 6 992. See note 1. b. INCIDENTS OF THE DOCTRINE — Beneficiary Paying Assessments. — See note 2. Original Beneficiary Paying Assessments in Ignorance of a Substitution. — See note 3. Possession' of Gertdficatft By Beneficiary; — See note 4. 993. Where Substitute Not Entitled to Become Beneficiary. — See note I. Aid Soc, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 507 ; O'Brien v. Supreme Council, etc., 81 N. Y. App. Div. i, affirmed (N. Y. 1903)' 68 N. E. Rep. 1120; Moan v. Normile, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 614; Bogart v. Thompson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 581 ; Southwell v. Gray, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35. Misc. (N. Y.) 740; Pollak v. Supreme Council, etc., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 274; Fanning v. Supreme Council, etc., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 205 ; Fink v. Fink, 171 N. Y. 616; Shipman v. Protected! Home Circle, 174 N. Y. 398; Collins v. Col- lins, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 341. Oregon. — Independent Foresters v. Keliher, 36 Oregon 501, petition for rehearing denied 36 Oregon 513, 78 Am. St. Rep. 785; String- ham v. Dillon, 42 Oregon 63. Pennsylvania. — Heasley v. Heasley, 191 Pa. St. 539; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Wolfe, 203 Pa. St. 269; Brown v. Ancient Order of United Workmen,, 208 Pa. St. 101, affirmed 208 Pa. St, 107 ; Hamilton v. Royal Arcanum, 1 89 Pa. St. 273,; Brubaker v. Brubaker, 18 Lane; L. Rev. 156. Tennessee. — Lane v. Lane, 99 Tenn. 639 ; Schardt v. Schardt, 100 Tenn. 276; Sofge v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 98 Tenn. 446. Washington. — Cade v. Head Camp, etc., 27 Wash. 218. Wisconsin. — ■ Strike v. Wisconsin Odd Fel- lows Mut. L. Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 583 ; Stoll u. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 115 Wis. 558; Berg v. Damkoehler, 112 Wis. 587; Hutson v. Jen- son, no Wis. 26. No Authorizing By-law or Statute Necessary. — " In the absence of any provisions in the cer- tificate, by-laws, articles of incorporation, or statute either providing expressly for a change of beneficiary or prohibiting such change, by Teason of the character and purposes of such associations, it should be held that the power to change the beneficiary is vested in the mem- ber assured during his lifetime." Carpenter v. Knapp, 101 Iowa 712. But see Locomotive Engineers Mut. L., etc., Ins. Assoc, tj. Winter- stein, 58 N. J. Eq. 189, holding that a certificate issued by a beneficial insurance association in- vests the beneficiary with a vested interest in the certificate which cannot be defeated by the member insured where neither the constitution or the by-laws of the society nor the certificate confers on the members the power to change the beneficiary. Charging the Fund with Payment of a Debt. — A member of a benefit association may charge the fund payable to the beneficiary previously designated with the payment of a debt owing by such member. Woodruff v. Tilman, 112 Mich; 188. Consent of the Beneficiary; — The power to change the beneficiary is not limited by a- provision indorsed on the certificate of a bene- fit association that " in case of assignment of the within certificate, the beneficiary must con- sent thereto, and said assignment must be approved by the secretary." Carpenter v. Knapp, ior Iowa- 712. A Revocation by an Insured Non Compos mentis and the appointment of a new beneficiary is invalid and ; the original beneficiaries are en- titled' to the fund. Cason v. Owens, roo Ga. 142. 991. 2. Fischer v. Fischer, 99 Tenn. 629, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d' ed.) 991. 3. Subsequent Change of Charter. — Where a member of a beneficial association had no power to- change the beneficiary at the time the certificate was issued, a subsequently adopted- by-law authorizing a change of the beneficiary has no retrospective effect. Locomotive Engi- neers Mut. L., etc., Ins. Assoc, v. Wi'nterstein, 58 N. J. Eq. 189. See also Mason v. Mason, (Ind. App. 1902)' 63 N. E. Rep. 578. 4. See Strike v. Wisconsin Odd' Fellows Mut. L. Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 583. 6. Amendment to By-laws — Construction. — See Hill v. Groesbeck, 29 Colo. 161 ; Pittinger v. Pittinger, 28 Colo. 308, 89 Am. St. Rep. 193. 992. 1. See West v. Grand Lodge, etc., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 471, holding that a by-law prescribing the classes' of beneficiaries passed after the issuance of the certificate is binding on the insured where a provision- to that effect is inserted in the certificate. 2". Effect of Beneficiary Paying Assessments. — Grand Lodge, etc., v. McGrath, 133 Mich. 626; Spengler v. Spengler, 65 N. J. Eq. 176; Heas- ley v. Heasley, 191 Pa. St. 539'; Fischer v. Fischer, 99 Tenn. 629; Cade v. Head Camp, etc., 27 Wash. 218; Strike v. Wisconsin Odd' Fellows Mut. L. Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 583, where one assessment was paid by a beneficiary, the rest being paid by the insured. 3. See Spengler v. Spengler,' 65 N. J. Eq. 17S. 4. Effect of Possession of Certificate by Bene- ficiary. — Delaney v. Delaney, 175 III. 187; Allgemeiner Arbeiter Bund v. Adamson, 132 Mich. 86; Grand Lodge, etc., v. McGrath, 133' Mich. 626 ; Spengler v. Spengler, 65 N. J. Eq. 176; Fink v. Delaware, etc., Mut. Aid. Soc, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 507; Lahey v. Lahey, 174 N. Y. 146, 95 Am. St. Rep. 554; Heasley v. Heasley, 191 Pa. St. 539. 993. 1. Where the person substituted was 53S $93-995 BENEFICIARIES. Vol. III. 993. c. Modifications of the Doctrine — Special Agreement. — See note 4. „ , . „ .. . d. Exercise of the Right of Divestiture — (i) Prescribed Form Generally Imperative — (a) In General. — See note 8. (b) Company's Consent Required. — See note 9. 994. (c) Indorsement on Certificate. — See note I. Signature — Attestation — Acknowledgment. — See notes 3, 5- (d) Surrender of Certificate. — See note 6. 995. (f) Entry on Record of Designated Official. — See note I . (h) Testamentary Changes — Compliance with Prescribed Formalities. — See note 5. not within any of the classes from which a designation of a beneficiary could be made, such substituted designation is void and the previous designation remains in force. Smith v. Boston, etc., R. Relief Assoc, 168 Mass. 213. 993. 4. Vested Right by Paying Assessments — Special Agreement — California. — Grimbley v. Harrold, 125 Cal. 24, 73 Am. St. Rep. 19. Colorado. — Hill v. Groesbeck, 29 Colo. 161. Illinois. — McGrew v. McGrew, 190 111. 604; Supreme Council, etc., v. Tracy, 169 111. 123. New Jersey. — Spengler v. Spengler, 65 N. J. Eq. 176; Supreme Council, etc., v. Murphy, (N. J. 1903) 55 Atl. Rep. 497. New York. — See also Webster v. Welch, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 558. Oregon. — Brett v. Warnick, 44 Oregon 511, 102 Am. St. Rep. 639. Pennsylvania. — Krause's Estate, 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 29. South Dakota. — ■ Benard v. Grand Lodge, etc., 13 S. Dak. 132. See also Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Wolfe, 203 Pa. St. 269, where it was said that a member of a beneficial society promising to substitute his intended wife as beneficiary on consumma- tion of their marriage, and in consideration thereof, would, after the marriage, have no power to substitute another in her place. The agreement or contract must, however, be fully performed on the part of the bene- ficiary, so that where the beneficiary failed to pay all the insured's dues, as he agreed to in consideration of his being named as beneficiary, he cannot claim the fund. Masonic Mut. Ben. Assoc, v. Tolles, 70 Conn. 537. 8. Illinois. — • Delaney v. Delaney, 70 111. App. 130. Iowa. — Shuman v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, no Iowa 642. Massachusetts. — Clark v. Supreme Council, etc., 176 Mass. 468. Michigan. — Grand Lodge, etc., v. Fisk, 126 Mich. 356. New Jersey. — Grand Lodge, etc., v. Con- nolly, 58 N. J. Eq. 180. Ohio. — Charch v. Charch, 57 Ohio St. 561. Oregon. — Independent Foresters v. Keliher, 36 Oregon 501, 78 Am. St. Rep. 785, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 993. Pennsylvania. — Stark v. Byers, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 517; Brown v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, 208 Pa. St. 101, affirmed 208 Pa. St. 107. Texas. — Bollman v. Supreme Lodge, etc., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 722. 536 Wisconsin. — McGowan v. Supreme Ct., etc., 104 Wis. 173. Where No Method Is Prescribed by the asso- ciation for changing the beneficiary, then " any mode of procedure which clearly indicates the intention of the member and the nature of the change desired will operate to effect that change." Fink v. Delaware, etc., Mut. Aid Soc, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 507. Payment of Fee Required. — Fink v. Fink, 171 N. Y. 616. See also Stringham v. Dillon, 42 Oregon 63. Revocation Essential. — Grand Lodge, etc., v. Gandy, 63 N. J. Eq. 692. Failure to Effect a Change of beneficiary does not result in the revocation of a prior designa- tion. Coyne v. Bowe, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 261. 9. Dale v. Brumbly, 96 Md. 674; Tillman v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. App. Div. 392 ; Murphy v. Metropolitan St. R. Assoc, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 751. Where No Provision for Consent of the asso- ciation is made, as prescribed by the statute, the insured can make the change without such consent. Collins v. Collins, 30 N. Y.App. Div. 341. Consent Presumed from Delivery of Certificate. — Collins v. Collins, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 341. Consent will also be presumed from the com- pany's giving notice of assessments to the assignee, and receiving payments of assess- ments from him. Strike v. Wisconsin Odd Fel- lows L. Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 583. 994. 1. Grand Lodge, etc., v. Ross, 89 Mo. App. 621 ; Grand Lodge, etc., v. Gandy, 63 N. J. Eq. 692. 3. Grand Lodge, etc., v. Gandy, 63 N. J. Eq. 692. 5. Grand Lodge, etc., v. Gandy, 63 N. J. Eq. 692; Berg v. Damkoehler, 112 Wis. 587. 6. Surrender of Certificate Essential. — Mod- ern Woodmen of America v. Little, 114 Iowa 109; Dale v. Brumbly, 96 Md. 674; Eagan v. Eagan, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 253 ; Wilson • 6. Where Assignment in Writing — No Particular Form Necessary. — See note "J. 1007. See note 1. 1003. note 4. 1004. 1005. Consent - 1006 1002. 4. Assignment as Collateral Valid. — — Embry v. Harris, 107 Ky. 61; Corcoran v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 183 Pa. St. 443; Herr v. Reinoehl, 209 Pa. St. 483 ; Dusenberry v. Mu- tual L. Ins. Co., 1S8 Pa. St. 454, upholding an assignment by a wife of her beneficial interest as security for her husband's debt. 6. Creditor Entitled to Amount of Debt Only. — Widaman v. Hubbard, 88 Fed. Rep. 806 ; Cul- ver v. Guyer, 129 Ala. 602; Morris v. Georgia Loan, etc., Banking Co., 109 Ga. 12; Barbour v. Larue, 106 Ky. 546; Palmer v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 318; Roanoke First Nat. Bank v. Terry, 99 Va. 194. 1004. 9. Gift Inter Vivos. — Hani v. Ger- mania L. Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 276, 80 Am. St. Rep. 819; McGlynn v. Curry, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 431; Lord v. New York L. Ins. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 139, affirmed 95 Tex. 216, 93 Am. St. Rep. 827; Opitz v. Karel, 118 Wis. 5 2 7- 1005. 1. Lehr v. Jones, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 54; Newman v. Bost, 122 N. Car. 524. 2. Company's Consent. — Wallace v. Bankers L. Assoc, 80 Mo. App. 102. Acts Constituting Consent, — A letter from an insurance company, acknowledging the receipt of an assignment of a policy issued by it, in which letter the company states that it will place the assignment " on file for such at- tention as it may deserve when such policy becomes a claim," is a sufficient indication of the company's consent to the assignment. Tremblay v. ./Etna L. Ins. Co., 97 Me. 547, 94 Am. St. Rep. 521. Also a provision in a policy requiring the insurer's consent to an assignment is waived by the insurer paying the fund into court, and failure to comply with such provision cannot be set up by the assignor to invalidate the assignment. Fuller v. Kent, 13 N. Y. App". Div. 529. See also John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. White, 20 R. I. 457. Want of Consent — Who May Set Up. — Want of the insurer's consent to the assignment cannot be set up by the assured or his attacking cred- itors after payment by the insurer to the assignee. Ramsay v. Myers, 6 Pa. Dist. 468. 4. Notice of Assignment. — Stoll v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 115 Wis. 558. When Not Necessary. — Notice, though re- quired by the insured, is not necessary as be- tween the asignor and assignee, the company not objecting. Richardson v. White, 167 Mass. 58. 6. Notice of Assignment — Certified Copy. — Corcoran v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 79 Pa. St. 132. 7. Opitz v. Karel, 118 Wis. 527. 1006. 1. Assignment Need Not Be Written. — — State v. Tomlinson, 16 Ind. App. 662, 59 Am. St. Rep. 335 ; Barnett v. Prudential Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. App. Div. 435 ; McGlynn v. Curry, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 431 ; Hani v. Germania L- Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 276, 80 Am. St. Rep. 819; Hancock v. Fidelity Mut. L. Ins. Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1899) S3 N. W. Rep. 181 ; Opitz v. Karel, 118 Wis. 527. But see Steele v. Gatlin, 115 Ga. 929. 2. Embry v. Harris, 107 Ky. 61. Pledge. — A provision in a policy requiring an assignment to be in writing will not render ineffectual a pledge thereof not in writing. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Healey, (Supm- Ct. Tr, T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 584, affirmed 25 N. Y. App. Div. 53. 8. Colburn's Appeal; 74 Conn. 463, 92 Am. St. Rep. 231 ; Burges v. New York L. Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 602. See also Weaver v. Weaver, 80 111. App. 370, But see Weaver v. Weaver, 182 111. 287, 74 Am. St. Rep. 173 ; McDonough v. .Etna L. Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 625, holding that filing assignments of a policy with the insurer company is equivalent to de- livery to the assignee. 4. Richardson v. White, 167 Mass. 58 ; Mc- Donough v. jEtna L. Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 625; Scully's Estate,. 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 307. 6. Williams v. Chamberlain, 165 111. 210. 7. Written Designation of Beneficiary as Assign- ment. — In O'Grady v. Prudential Ins. Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 548, it was held that a delivery by the insured to his daughter of a policy of insurance together with a writing designating her as beneficiary was a sufficient assignment of the policy to enable the daughter to bring suit thereon under Act March 17, 1843, per- mitting the bringing of actions by assignees of life insurance policies in their own names. 1007. 1. Request by Insured to Pay After His Death Held Not an Assignment. — Alvord v. Luckenbach, 106 Wis. 537. 538 Vol. III. BENEFICIARIES. 1007-1015 1007. 1008. 5,6. Delivery to Representative of Assignee. — See note 3. Acquiescence — Estoppel. — See note 4. (3) Beneficiary' s Consent. — See note 8. d. Exceptions — Wife's Policy — new York Buie. — See notes Want of Consideration. — See note 8. 3. Right to Damages and Attorneys' Fees upon Insurer's Failure to Pay Lops. — See note 12. 1009. The Constitutionality of These Enactments. — See note 2. 1013. 4. Right to Recover Interest — a. When Interest Is Allowable. — See note 3. 1013. b. When Interest Begins to Run. — See note 8. Where Policy Provides for Payment a Certain Period After Furnishing Proofs of Loss. — See note 9. 1014. 5. Shares of Joint Beneficiaries. — See note 9. 1015. In Kentucky. — See note 1. 6. Beneficiaries' Rights as Affected by Acts and Omissions of the Insured — a. Requirement of Arbitration — General Buie. — See note 5. 1007. 3. Delivery to - Third Person on be- half of arid in the presence of the assignee has been held sufficient. Stoll v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., 115 Wis. 558. See also Lord v. New York L. Ins. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 139, affirmed 95 Tex. 216, 93 Am. St. Rep. 827. 4. The Adminstrator of the Assignor of a life insurance policy cannot set up that the assign- ment was not made in compliance with the rules of the insurer. Burges v. New York L. Ins. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 602. 8. Duress. — Plant v. Plant, 76 Miss. 560. 1008. 5. Spencer v. Myers, 150 N. Y. 269, 55 Am. St. Rep. 675, holding that the statute, Laws 1879, u. 248, applies as well to policies issued within the state by foreign corporations as to those issued by domestic corporations. Policy Assigned to Wife Not Included, — Mor- schauser v. Pierce, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 558. A paid-up policy payable to the wife of the insured which has been substituted for one pay- able to the insured's representatives is but a continuation of the latter and not a " wife's policy" within the meaning of the Act of 1879, so that a*n assignment by the wife without the written consent of her husband is sufficient to divest her of her rights thereunder. Dann- hauser v. Wallenstein, 169 N. Y. 199, reversing 52 N. Y. App. Div. 312. 6. Fuller v. Kent, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 529; Sherman v. Allison, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 49, affirmed (N. Y. 1904) 69 N. E. Rep. 1131. 8. Sufficiency of Consideration — Benefit to Hus- band. — Dusenberry v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 188 Pa. St. 455. 12. Texas Act. — ■ Cameron i/.-Barcus, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 46 ; Supreme Council, etc., v. Story, 97 Tex. 264. No Penalties Imposed Where Interpleader Granted. — Stevens v. Germania L. Ins. Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 156. 1009. 2. These Acts Constitutional. — Wash- ington L. Ins. Co. v. Gooding, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 490 ; Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cole, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 730. Statute Applying Only to One Class of Companies Unconstitutional. -*■ A statute (Rev. Stat. Texas 1895, art. 3071) imposing a liability on health ■and life insurance companies alone has been held unconstitutional as in violation of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con- stitution of the United States. New York L. , Ins. Co. v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 680. 1012. 3. Interest on Proceeds of Policy. — Grand Lodge, etc., v. Orrell, 109 111. App. 422; Knights Templars, etc., L. Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 111. 550. 1013. 8. Glaser v. New York Physicians Mut. Aid Assoc, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 67. Interest Allowed from the Death of the Insured. — Fanning v. Supreme Council, etc., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 205. 9. Payment Certain Time After Furnishing Proofs of Death. — Knights Templars, etc., L. Indem- nity Co. v. Crayton, 209 111. 550. 1014. 9. Joint Beneficiaries — Equal Shares. — Belli'. Kinneer, lot Ky. 271, 42 Am. St. Rep. 410; Tepper v. Supreme Council, etc., 61 N. J. Eq. 638; Watt v. Gideon, 8 Pa. Dist. 395, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 499. In Indiana the same rule is applied. Bun- yan v. Reed, (Ind. App. 1904) 70 N. E. Rep. 1002. 1015. 1. Johnson v. Johnson, (Ky. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 469. Compare Bell v. Kinneer, ioi Ky. 271, 72 Am. St. Rep. 410. 5. Maxwell v. Family Protective Union, 115 Ga. 475. Trustee Suing for Beneficiaries Not Bound. — Schiff v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 64 111. App. 34i- Waiver by Answer. — A by-law requiring sub- mission of certain controversies to the so- ciety's tribunals before resorting to the courts is waived by its failure to set up in its answer noncompliance of the beneficiary with such "" by-law. Wuerfier v. Grand Grove, etc., 116 Wis. 19. q6 Am. St. Rep. 940. A Denial of All Liability by a beneficial order under a certificate constitutes a waiver of its right under a by-law to insist that the bene- ficiary submit her claim to the benefit to tri- bunals of the order before resorting to the 539 1015-1031 BENEFICIARIES. Vol. III. 1015. Eefers to Disputes Between Members Within the Society. — See note 6. Provision that Directors' Decision Shall Be Final. — See note 7. When Beneficiary Bonnd. — See note 8. 1016. b. Premiums Paid with Stolen Money — Recovery of Beneficiary. — See note 5. c. Suicide of the Insured — Euie stated. — See note 6. 1018. d. Evidence of Insured's Declarations — it is the General Euie. — See note 6. 1019. See note 2. Ees Gestae. — See note 3. Fraudulent Intent. — See note 4. 1030. The Testimony of an Attending Physician. — See note 4. 1031. 7. Rights of Beneficiary where Accrual of Policy Is Effected by His Own Act — Forfeiture by Murder. — See note 2. Eecovery by Insured's Eepresentatives. — See note 5- courts. Wuerfler v. Grand Grove, etc., 116 Wis. 19, 96 Am. St. Rep. 940. 1015. 6. Question of Membership Not In- cluded. — Wuerfler v. Grand Grove, etc., 1 1 6 Wis. 19, 96 Am. St. Rep. 940. 7. Provision that Decision of Directors Shall Be Final. — See Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Stank- ard, 56 Ohio St. 224, 60 Am. St. Rep. 745, holding a similar provision not to cut off appeal to the courts. See also Grimbley v. Harrold, 125 Cal. 24, 73 Am. St. Rep. 19. 8. Beneficiary Bound. — Weigand -u. Fra- ternities Ace. Order, 97 Md. 443 ; Hoag v. Su- preme Lodge, etc., 134 Mich. 87; Russell v. North American Ben. Asoc, 116 Mich. 699; Cotter v. Grand Lodge, etc., 23 Mont. 82. 1016. 5. See Dayton v. H. B. Claflin Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 41 N. Y. Supp. 839, where an employer recovered the proceeds of a policy on the life of his employee, the premiums of which had been paid with money stolen from the employer. 6. No Forfeiture by Implication for Suicide — Illinois. — Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Kutscher, 72 111. App. 462. Iowa. — Parker v. Des Moines L. Assoc, 108 Iowa 117; Seiler v. Economic L. Assoc, 105 Iowa 87. Minnesota. — Robson v. United Order of Foresters, (Minn. 1904I 100 N. W. Rep. 381. Nebraska. — Supreme Lodge, etc, v. Under- wood, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 1051. New Jersey. — Campbell v. Supreme Con- clave, etc., 66 N. J. L. 274, citing 3 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1016. Pennsylvania. — Morris ■ series of notes shall mature upon the failure to pay any one of the notes at maturity, and each note contains a stipulation for the payment of an attorney's fee, the holder may recover attorney's "fees, upon the failure of the maker to pay one of the notes at maturity, although the holder makes no demand and the maker was ready to pay them on demand. Dieter v. Bowers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 847. Indorser Without Notice of Dishonor Not Liable for Fees. — Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30. 102. 3. Not Conclusive in Amount. — Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60; Jones v. Harrell, no Ga. 373 ; Cramers. Huff, 114 Ga. 981 ; Rouyerw. Miller, 16 Ind. App. 519; Warren v. Syfers, 23 Ind. App. 167; Bay v. Trusdell, 92 Mo. App. 377; Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Greer, 19 Wash. 611; Morrison v. Ornbaun, 30 Mont. in. See also Cox v. Alexander, 30 Oregon 438 ; Lay v. Cardwell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep- 595; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah 308, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934. Compare Stephenson v. Allison, 123 Ala. 439. What Constitutes Bringing Suit Within mean- ing of Provision. — Hall v. Read, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 18. Proof of Value of Services Essential. — Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9. Burden of Proving Amount on Plaintiff. — Shoup v. Snepp, 22 Ind. App. 30. Proof of Reasonableness of Amount. — Hills- boro First Nat. Bank v. Mack, 35 Oregon 122. ' Ascertainment of Beasonable Amount. — Mcll- henny v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 282. Amount Stipulated Presumed Beasonable. — Stephenson v. Allison, 123 Ala. 439 ; Rouyer v. Miller, 16 Ind. App. 519; Haywood v. Miller, 14 Wash. 660; Cowan v. Campbell, 131 Ala. 211. Judicial Notice as to Beasonableness of Amount. — Warnock v. Itawis, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 297. No Amount Stipulated. — Ray v. Pease, 97 Ga. 618. See also Stone v. Billings, 167 111. 170. Manner of Ascertaining Where No Amount Stipulated. — Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kings- land, etc., Mfg. Co., s Okla. 32. The stipulation being a contract for indemnity and not one for the payment of agreed damage, where no agreement has been made between the holders and the attorney employed by him to collect, the holder can recover on the note only such amount for attorneys' fees as his attorney can recover from him for his services, which is, in the absence of agreement, their reasonable value. Texas Land, etc., Co. v. Robertson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 1.020. Where No Amount Is Stipulated the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that a fee alleged by him to be reasonable is such. Woodruff v. Hensley, 26 Ind. App. 592. Power of Court to Fix Amount. — Burns v. Staacke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 354; Hellier v. Russell, 136 Cal. 143; Jones v. Stoddart, 8 Idaho 210. Amount Determined by Court in Absence of Ex- act Stipulation. — Fowler v. Bell, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 822. Mode of Ascertainment Provided by Iowa Code, § 3869. — Bankers' Iowa State Bank v. Jordan, in Iowa 324. Fees Determined by Clerk under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 585, subd. 1. — Alexander u. McDow, 108 Cal. 25. Stipulation Controlling Before Wash. Act of 1895. — McDougall v. Walling, 19 Wash. 80. Stipulation as to Amount Conclusive, — Gordan v. Decker, 19 Wash. 188; Dunovant v. Staf- ford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 10 1 ; Robertson v, Holman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 326; Carver v. J. S. May- field Lumber Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 434. The Giving of a New Note does not constitute such a payment as to authorize the recovery of attorney's fees under a stipulation providing for such fees if the note is collected by an attorney. Davis v. Cochran, 76 Miss. 439. The Notes Must Be Placed in an Attorney's Hands for Collection to warrant a judgment for fees. Smith v. Board, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 213. Question Whether Note Placed in Attorney's Hands for Collection One of Fact. — Rogers v. O'Barr, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 593- Appearance of Attorney Sufficient Proof. — Bon- nell v. Prince, 1 1 Tex. Civ. App. 399. 103. 1. How Becoverable. — Mason v. Luce, 116 Cal. 232. Separate Suit Essential. — Hand v. Simpson, 99 111. App. 269. See also Dearlove v. Edwards, 166 111. 619. Bringing of Suit Condition Precedent to Re- covery, under Ga. Civ. Code, § 3667. — Jones v. Crawford, 107 Ga. 318. Fees Becoverable in Suit on Note. — Byers v. Bellan- Price Invest. Co., 10 Colo. App. 74; Williams v. Harrison, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 179. See also Harris v. Scrivener, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 78 S. W. Rep. 705. See McAnally v. Vickry, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 857. Where the Fee Is Due " When the Note Is Placed in the Hands of an Attorney for Collection," it may be recovered in the same suit. National Bank v. Danahy, 89 111. App. 92. Suit on Note Not Prerequisite. — Morrison v. Ornbaun, 30 Mont. in. When Attachment Levied Before Maturity. — Where notes provided that if not paid at ma- turity the maker should pay a reasonable attorney's fee, if collected by an attorney, it was held that he was liable for such fee, upon nonpayment at maturity, notwithstanding the fact that an attachment was sued out before the maturity of one of the notes. Munn v. Planters, etc., Bank, 109 Ala. 215. 563 10.1 110 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 103. 104. 105. 108. 109. 110. (b) Medium of Payment — an. General Principles. — See note 3. Provision for Payment in Particular Denomination of Money. — See note 4. Instruments Payable in Specific Articles or Securities. — See notes I, 2, 3. (5) As to Parties — (a) Certainty of Parties in General. — See note 3. (b) Signature of Drawer or Maker — aa. In General. — See note I. Need Not Be Subscribed. — See note 2. Mark or Initials. — See note 6. Adopted Name — Matter of Description. — See note 8. Proof of Signature. — See note IO. bb. Joint and Several Notes. — See note I. joint Note. — See notes 2, 3, 4. Georgia Statute. — Wlien suit is brought on a promissory note containing the usual stipu- lation as to the payment of attorney's fees, and one of the defenses upon which the defendant relies is sustained, the plaintiff is not entitled to collect any amount as attorney's fees. Trent- ham v. Blumenthal, 118 Ga. 530. 103. 2. Tender Before Suit. — See also Rose v. McCracken, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 637. Notice Prerequisite under Georgia Statute. — Holcomb v. Cable Co., 119 Ga. 466. 3. Money the Only Medium of Payment. — Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251, 82 Am. St. Rep. 120; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681 (under Cal. Civ. Code, § 3088) ; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Roads v. Webb, gi Me. 406, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246; Brooklyn First Nat. Bank v. Slette, 67 Minn. 425, 64 Am. St. Rep. 429; Chandler v. Calvert, 87 Mo. App. 368; Stadler v. Helena- First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582; Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4; Ran- dolph v. Hudson, 12 Okla. 516; Merchants, etc., Bank v. Pizor, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 273. 104. 4. Provision for Payment in " Gold Coin or Its Equivalent in Currency of the United States " Valid. — Wright v. Morgan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 627. 105. 1. Promise to Pay in Specific Articles. — Chandler v. Calvert, 87 Mo. Apg. 368 ; Atlanta Guano Co. v. Hunt, 100 Tenn. 89. 2. Payable in Securities. — Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251, 82 Am. St. Rep. 120. Note Payable by " New York or Chicago Ex- change " Not Negotiable. — Brooklyn First Nat. Bank v. Slette, 67 Minn. 425, 64 Am. St. Rep. 429 ; Chandler v. Calvert, 87 Mo. App. 368. 3. Payment in Chattels of Uncertain Value. — Buford v. Ward, 108 Ala. 307. 108. 3. Crider v. Shelby, 95 Fed. Rep. 212; Gehlbach v. Carlinville Nat. Bank, 83 111. App. 129; Randolph 1. Hudson, 12 Okla. 516; Merchants, etc., Bank v. Pizor, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 273- 109. 1. Signing Essential. — Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251, 82 Am. St. Rep. 120; Merchants, etc., Bank v. Pizor, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 273. See also Randolph v. Hudson, 12 Okla. 516. The Misspelling of His Name by the Maker in signing a note payable to him is immaterial when it appears that he executed the note and that he spelled his name properly in indorsing it. Lassen County Bank v. Sherer, 108 Cal. 513. Maker Not Disclosed. — No party can be charged as a principal on a negotiable note, unless his name is therein disclosed. Lewis v. Cambridge First Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 355- 2. Need Not Be Subscribed. — Miers v. Coates, 57 111. App. 216; Dow Law Bank u. Godfrey, 126 Mich. 521, 86 Am. St. Rep. 559; Pearl v. Cortright, 81 Miss. 300. Signature on Back of Note Sufficient. — Eudora Min., etc., Co. v. Barclay, 122 Ala. 506. 6. Signature by Mark. — ■ Wright v. Forgy, 126 Ala. 389; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Copsey, 134 Cal. 287; Sivils v. Taylor, 12 Okla. 47; Remillard v. Moisan, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 622. Signature by Agent in the Maker's Presence is sufficient even though it appears that the original intention of the maker was to sign by mark. Spearman v. Equitable Mortg. Co., 115 Ga. 670. Signing of Maker's Name by Another in Maker's Presence Sufficient. — Crumrine v. Crumrine, 14 Ind. App. 641. 8, Adopted Business Name. — Stony Island Hotel Co. v. Johnson, 57 111. App. 608. See also Jones v. Home Furnishing Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 103. Assumed Name. — Karoly Electrical Constr. Co. v. Globe Sav. Bank, 64 111. App. 225. One who signs a promissory note in the name of another, by himself as attorney in fact, but who, to the knowledge of the payee and a subsequent indorsee, had no authority to use the other's name, and who refuses their solicitation to sign his own name and bind himself personally, is not liable upon the note as his contract, notwithstanding the fact that it was given in a transaction of his own, and that he was generally using the name signed to the note as a trade-name. Kansas Nat. Bank v. Bay, 62 Kan. 692, 84 Am. St. Rep. 417. 10. Proof of Signature. — Wright v. Forgy, 126 Ala. 389. Mode of Proof under Cal. Civ. Code, $ 14.— Farmers', etc., Bank v. Copsey, 134 Cal. 287. Proof by Payee Insufficient. — Chadwell v. Chadwell, 98 Ky. 643. Mode of Proving Signature Made by Third Person and Adopted by Maker of Vote. — Harris v. Tinder, 109 Mo. App. 563. 110. 1. Note Signed by Two. — Weirick v. Graves, 73 111. App. 266. 2. Taylor v. Reger, 18 Ind. App. 469, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) no; Crepeau v. Beauchesne, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 495; Noble v. Forgrave, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 234- Under Cal. Civ. Code, § 1659. — Farmers' Exert, Bank v. Morse, 129 Cal. 239. 564 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 110-113 110. Joint and Several Note. — See notes 5, 7. 111. Relation of Suretyship Between Makers. — See notes I, 2. Note Signed by Several in Representative Capacity. — See note 5. (c) Direction to Drawee — Neeesiity of Drawee — Accepted Bill Without Drawee. — See note 6. 113. (d) Designation of Payee — aa. In General — Payee Must Be Ascertained. — - See note 7. 113. See note 1. Note to A or B. — See note 3. Note Presumed Joint and Several, under Okla. Stat. 1893, § 851. — Outcalt v. Collier, 8 Okla. 473- 110. 3. Taylor v. Reger, 18 Ind. App. 469, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encvc. of Law (2d ed.) no. 4. Note in Terms Joint May Be Shown to Be Several. — Hecker v. Mahler, 64 Ohio St. 398. " I or We " Promise to Pay Signed by Several Held Joint and Several Note. — Harris v. Cole- man, etc., White Lead Co., 58 111. App. 366. Joint and Several Notes under Cal. Civ. Code, § 1659. — Leonard v. Leonard, 138 Cal. xix, 70 Pac. Rep. 1 07 1. 5 American Nat. Bank v. Omaha Coffin Mfg. Co., (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 672. 7. "I Promise," Signed by Two or More. — Ullery v. Brohm, (Colo. 1904) 79 Pac. Rep. 180; Dow Law Bank v. Godfrey, 126 Mich. 521, 86 Am. St. Rep. 559 ; Dodge v. Chessman, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 604. 111. 1. Alabama. — Jackson v. Wood, 108 Ala. 209 ; Alabama Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 12s Ala. 512; Ross v. De Campi, 140 Ala. 327. Georgia. — Trammell v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 121 Ga. 778; Hall v. Rogers, 114 Ga. 357- Missouri. — McPherson v. Andes, 75 Mo. App. 204 ; Hardester v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624. New Yo^k. — Fitch v. Fraser, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 119. Ohio. — Hecker v. Mahler, 64 Ohio St. 398. West Virginia. — Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122. See also Redmond v. Smith, 22 Tex. Civ. App- 323- Relative Position of Signatures as Evidence of Nature of Relation. — Shead v. Moore, 31 Wash. 283. The Addition of the Word " Surety " after the name of one of the makers does not alter his liability to the payee as a joint maker. Gallo- way v. Bartholomew, 44 Oregon 75. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Relation of Suretyship. — Bettinger v. Scully, 36 Wash. 396. 2. Trammell v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 121 Ga. 778; Compton v. Smith, 120 Ala. 233; Peterson v. Stege, 67 111. App. 147 ; Hardes- ter v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624 ; Hecker v. Mah- ler, 64 Ohio St. 398. See also Shead v. Moore, 31 Wash. 283. Burden of Proof on Defendant. — Jennison v. Sceets, 60 111. App. 607. 5. California. — Savings Bank v. Central Market Co., 122 Cal. 28. Illinois. — Miers v. Coates, 57 111. App. 216; Williams v. Harris, 198 111. 501. Kentucky. — Warford v. Temple, (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. loaj. Maine. — Gleason v. Sanitary Milk-Supply Co., 93 Me. 544, 74 Am. St. Rep. 370. Massachusetts. — Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577. New York. — Bush v. Gilmore, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 89 ; Union Nat. Bank v. Scott, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 65. Pennsylvania. — Williams v. Hippie, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 81. Wisconsin. — -Nunnemacher v. Poss, 116 Wis. 444. See Wilson v. Fite, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 1056. See also Luster v. Robinson, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 896; Daniel v. Butt- ner, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 811. 6. Direction to Drawee Essential. — McPher- son v. Johnston, 3 British Columbia 465. 112. 7. Payee Must Be Pointed Out. — Weeger v. Mueller, 102 111. App. 258; Craw- ford v. Johnson, 87 Mo. App. 478 ; Randolph v. Hudson, 12 Okla. 516; Merchants, etc., Bank v. Pizor, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 273 ; Smith v. Willing, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 692. See also Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249. Where the Payee's Name Is Not Designated the note is treated as being made to a fictitious payee and is payable to bearer. Simmons v. Brown, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 29, 1 Cleve. L. Rec. 33. Mich. Comp. Laws, § 6081, requiring that the full name of partnership associations be given in promissory notes, has reference only to papers made by such associations and not to those made to them. Shaw v. Brown, 128 Mich. 573- Warrant of Attorney to Confess Judgment in Favor of Holder -does not remedy the omission of the payee's name and render the note pay- able to bearer. Smith v. Willing, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 692. " Bearer " a Sufficient Designation. — Mer- chants, etc., Bank v. Pizor, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 273. 113. 1. Payee Must Be Ascertainable. — Stern v. Eichberg, 83 111. A^>p. 442 ; Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249. Illustrations. — An instrument payable to a particular person, " trustee," sufficiently desig- nates the payee. Central State Bank v. Spurlin, in Iowa 187, 82 Am. St. Rep. 511. An indorsement on a note, " I hereby assume and agree to pay the principal of the within note," sufficiently designates the payee. Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249. Renewal Note Payable to Dead Person. — Dark v. Middlebrook, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 963. " Estate of A " as Payee Sufficient Designation. — Stern v. Eichberg, 83 111. App. 442. 8. Payable to One of Two. — Colly er v. Cook, 28 Ind. App. 272. 565 Ill 125 114. 115. 116. 117. 119. BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. See note i. bb. Fictitious Payees. — See notes 5> 6. Intention and Knowledge Control. — See notes I, 2. Estoppel in Favor of Bona Fide Holder. — • See note I. (e) Instrument Defective as to Parties — bb. Drawer and Drawee Same Person. — See note j. 1 20. cc. Drawer or Maker and Payee Same Person — Bills of Exchange. — See note I. 131. 133. 133. 134. Promissory Notes. — See notes 4 ( 5, 6. Notes by a Firm to Partner, or Corporation to Officer. - See note I. (6) Absence of Seal. — See notes 6, 9. Corporation Paper. — See note 2. (7) Not Coupled with Collateral Agreements ■ See note 5. 135. See note 1. 114. 1. Note Payable to Husband or Wife — Action Maintainable by Either. — Carr v. Bauer, 61 111. App. 504. 115. 5. Who May Not Claim the Benefit of the Bale. — Luraley v. Kinsella Glass Co., 85 111. App. 412. 6. Fictitious Payee Equivalent to Bearer. — Clutton v. Attenborough, (1895) 2 Q- B. 707; Security Bank v. Lucas, 69 Minn. 46 ; Odell v. Clyde, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 333. See also Jones v. Home Furnishing Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 103. Knowledge Requisite under Michigan Statute. — Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 35i- Under Mich. Comp. Laws, § 4870, providing that notes made payable to a fictitious person shall be as though made to bearer, the same effect will be given to a note to a partner- ship association which fails to designate the association properly. Shaw v. Brown, 128 Mich. 573. Under Minn. Gen. Stat., 1894, g 3236, the same rule is applied to a promissory note payable to the order of the maker and negotiated by him without indorsement. Security " Bank v. Lucas, 69 Minn. 46. Under 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat., p. 768, § 5, providing that a note payable to the order of the maker shall, if negotiated by the maker, have the same effect as if payable to bearer, it is necessary that the' note shall be negotiated by the maker, in order that it shall have this effect. Odell v. Clyde, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 333. 116. 1. Test as to Fictitious Character of Payee. — Clutton v. Attenborough, (1897) A. C. 90. 2. Name of Heal Person Inserted by Pretense. — Clutton v. Attenborough, (1897) A. C. 90. 117. 1. Forged Indorsement Passes No Title. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Waggeman, 87 111. App. 171, affirmed 187 111. 227. 119. 7. Gray Tie, etc., Co. v. Farmers' Bank, 109 Ky. 694. 120. 1. Jenkins v. Coomber, (1898) 2 Q. B. 168, 67 L. J. Q. B. 780, 78 L. T. N. S. 752, 47 W. R. 48. 4. Indorsed Note Payable to Maker. — in re Edson, 119 Fed. Rep. 487; Odell v. Clyde, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 735, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) See note 4. (a) General Principles. — ■ 566 120, affirmed 38 N. Y. App. Div. 333; Petty- john v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. in. 5. Same — Indorsement in Blank. — Meyer v. Foster, (Cal. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 402; Petty- john v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. in; Walker v. Sims, 9 Kan. App. 890, 64 Pac. Rep. 81. 6. Under 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (9th ed.) p. 1851, S 5 -Odell v. Clyde, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 735, affirmed 38 N. Y. App. Div. 333. 121. 4. Pettyjohn v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. in; Fisher v. Diehl, 94 Md. 114, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 121. 122. 1. Indorsed Note of Firm to Partner. — Pettyjohn v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. in. 123. 6. Breitling v. Marx, 123 Ala. 222; McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 438, 90 Am. St. Rep. 68i, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 123, 124. 9. Stevenson v. Bethea, 68 S. Car. 246. See also Sclauch v. O'Hare, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 384. Written Promise under Seal Cannot Be Declared on as Promissory Note. — Breitling v. Marx, 123 Ala. 222. Under S. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 3549, abolish- ing all distinctions between sealed and un- sealed instruments, the fact that the note is sealed does not render it nonnegotiable. Lan- dauer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205. 124. 2. Modern Doctrine — Corporate Paper. — Clark v. Read, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 343; Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532; Mc- Laughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 438, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 123, 124. Corporate Seal Does Not Render a Note Non- negotiable under S. Dak. Comp. Laws, c. 3549. Landauer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205. 5. Instruments Encumbered with Collateral Stipulations. — Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681 (under Cal. Civ. Code, § 3093) ; Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4; Ran- dolph v. Hudson, 12 Okla.' 516; Thorpe v. Mindeman, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 417. Under Mont. Civ. Code, § 3997. — Stadler v. Helena First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582. 125. 1. Independent Stipulations. — Doe v. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 125-126 135. 126. 127. 128. Such a Multiplication of Independent Provisions. — See note 2. Where the Collateral Act Is One Which the Law Would Supply. — See note I. (b) Ancillary Provisions as to Payment. — See note 2. Waiver of Exemption and Valuation Laws. — See note 3. Authority to Confess Judgment. — See note 4. See note 1. Deposit of Security. — See notes 2, 3. Notes for Purchase of Chattel — Title in Payee. — See notes 4, 5. See note 2. Callow, 10 Kan. App. 581, 63 Pac. Rep. 603 ; Prescott v. Garland, 34 N. Bruns. 291. See also Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4. Provision for Demanding Increased Collateral. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Consumers' Brew- ing Co., 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186. 1 25. 2. Seasons Why Such Provisions Destroy Negotiability. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Con- sumers' Brewing Co., 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186 ; Chapman v. Steiner, 5 Kan. App. 326 ; Thorpe v. Mindeman, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. Y. Rep. 417. 126. 1. Cuyahoga Steam-Furnace Co. v. Lewis, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 17, Cleve. L. Rec. is. See also Phelps, etc., Windmill Co. v. Honeywell, 7 Kan. App. 645 ; Kendall v. Selby, 66 Neb. 60, 103 Am. St. Rep. 697; An- derson v. Poirier, 13 Quebec Super. Ct. 283. 2. Ancillary Provisions About Payment. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Consumers' Brewing Co., 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186; Lasher v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 115 Iowa 231; Phelps, etc., Windmill Co. v. Honeywell, 7 Kan. App. 64s ; Buffalo Third Nat. Bank v. Bowman Spring, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 66. See also Kirkwood v. Carroll, (1903) 1 K. B. 531, 72 L. J. K. B. 208, 88 L. T. N. S. 52. 51 W. R. 374; Frost v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 322. Provisions Limiting Remedies, — A written agreement made by the payee of a promissory note with the maker thereof contemporane- ously with the execution and delivery of the note to the former, and evidencing a part of the contract then entered into between the parties, stipulating that the maker is " not to be sued on said note, and it is entirely discre- tionary with him whether he pays said note or not," in effect relieves the maker from all liability upon the note, as to the payee thereof or his legal representative. Martin v. Mon- roe, 107 Ga. 330. 3. Waiver of Exceptions, etc. — Levy, etc., Mule Co. v. Kauffman, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 170; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Nicely v. Winnebago Nat. Bank, 18 Ind. App. 30. Bight Passes to Transferee. — Gilmore v. Ger- man Sav. Bank, 89 111. App. 442. 4. Judgment Notes. — Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Gehlbach v. Carlinville Nat. Bank, 83 111. App. 129; Mann v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 100 111. App. 224; Baker v. Nipple, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 659. Authority Passes with Note When Conferred on Holder. — Simmons v. Brown, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 29, 1 Cleve. L. Rec. 33. Provision Authorizing Judgment Before Ma- turity Renders Note Nonnegotiable. — Milton Nat. Bank v. Beaver, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 494 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). The Provision of the Negotiable Instruments Law that the negotiable character of an instru- ment is not affected by a provision which authorizes a confession of judgment if the instrument be not paid at maturity, does not render negotiable an instrument which author- izes judgment to be entered thereon at any time after its date, whether due or not. Wis- consin Yearly Meeting, etc., v. Babler, 115 Wis. 289. Note Held Negotiable on Ground that Provision Is Void. — Tolman v. Janson, 106 Iowa 455. 127. 1. Baker v. Nipple, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 659 ; Sclauch v. O'Hare, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 384 ; Weaver v. Paul,- 4 Pa. Dist. 492. See also Law v. Crawford, 67 Mo. App. 150. 2. Provision that Security Has Been Deposited. — Mumford v. Tolman, 157 111. 258; Mann v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 100 111. App. 224; Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4 ; Roblee v. Union Stockyards Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1903) 9s N. W. Rep. 61 ; Rathburn v. Jones, 47 S. Car. 206. See also Metcalf v. Draper, 98 111. App. 399 ; Biegler v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 164 111. 197. Authority to Require Additional Collateral — Effect on Negotiability. — A provision authoriz- ing a third party, not otherwise connected with the transaction, to demand additions to the col- lateral or the payment of money on account, whenever in its opinion the collateral shall have depreciated in value, and to sell the col- lateral in case of failure to comply with the demand, renders the note nonnegotiable. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Consumers' Brew- ing Co., 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 100. 3. Stipulation for Sale of Collateral Before Ma- turity Destroys Negotiability. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Consumers' Brewing Co., 16 App. Cas. CD. C.) 186. 4. Notes for Chattels — Vendor Retaining Title. — Cooper v . Chicago Cottage Organ Co., 58 111. App. 248; Choate v. Stevens, 116 Mich. 28 ; Buffalo Third Nat. Bank v. Bowman- Spring, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 66 ; Pyron v. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060. Retention of Title by Vendor Renders the Note Nonnegotiable.— Gazlay v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501. Note Nonnegotiable under Canadian Bills of Exchange Act, 1890, § 82, subs. 3. — Hamilton Bank v. Gillies, 12 Manitoba 495; Prescott v. Garland, 34 N. Bruns. 291. 5. Provision by Which Note May Be Declared Due Before Maturity. — Prescott v. Garland, 34 N. Bruns. 291. 128. 2. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Con- 567 128 132 &ILLS OF EXCHANGE. Vol. IV. 128. b. Orderly Parts and Special Clauses in Bills and Notes — (i) Expression of Date of Making — Not Essential. — See notes 3, 4. 139. Expressed Date — How Ear Conclusive. — See note I. Antedating and Postdating. — See notes 4, 5. 130. (3) Expression of Amount — The Marginal Figures. — See notes 5,6. Variance Between Amount in Body and Margin. — See notes J, 8. 131. Where the Amount Is Left Blank. — See notes I, 2. Omissions of Words Expressing Denomination of Figures. — See note 3. (4) Expression of Place of Payment. — See note 8. 132. See note I* Statutes as to Notes Payable at Banks. — See notes 3, 4, 5. 7- sttaiers' Brewing Co., 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 186. 128. 3. Date Not Essential. — Breckenridge First State Sav. Bank v. Webster, 121 Mich. *49- Holder May Insert Proper Date, — Brecken- ridge First State Sav. Bank v. Webster, 121 Mich. 149. 4. Breckenridge First State Sav. Bank v. Webster, 121 Mich. 149. 139. 1, Date Evidence of Time of Execution. — McFall v. Murray, 4 Kan. App. 554. 4. Notes and Bills Antedated. — An antedated note takes effect as of the date of its delivery unless the equities between the parties require that the date of its inception shall prevail. Button v. Belding, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 618. Postdated Bills and Notes. — McFall v. Mur- ray, 4 Kan. App. 554- 5. Hackett v. Louisville, First Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 193. 1 30. 5. Marginal Figures Not Part of Instru- ments. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 130 ; Vinson v. Palmer, (Fla. 1903) 34 So, Rep. 276; Merritt v. Boyden, igi 111. 152, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 130; Sexton v.. Barrie, 102 111. App. 586 ; Weaver v. Paul, 4 Pa. Dist. 492 ; Kimball v. Costa, 76 Vt. 294, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 130. 6. Object and Effect of Marginal Figures. — Vinson v. Palmer, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 276; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 152, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 130; Weaver v. Paul, 4 Pa. Dist. 492 ; Kimball v. Costa, 76 Vt. 289, citing 4 A.M. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 130. 7. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St- Rep- 52 ; Merritt v. Boyden, 93 111. App. 613, afhrmed 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246; Central Nat. Bank v. Pipkin, 66 Mo. App. 592 ; Kimball v. Costa, 76 Vt. 294, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. o.f Law (2d ed.) 130. 8. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St, Rep. 5.2. 131. 1. Filling in Amount. — Weaver v. Paul, 4 Pa. Dist. 492 ; Kimball v. Costa, 76 Vt. 294, citing 4 Am. and Eng, Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 130, 2, Vinson v. Palmer, (Fla. 1903) 34 So. Rep. 276. See Merritt v., Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246. 3, Supplying Denominational Word. — Louis- ville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala, 251, 8a Am, St 8ej), I2Q, 568 8. Anniston L. & T. Co. v. Stickney, 108 Ala. 146; Holmes v. Ft. Gaines Bank," 120 Ala. 493. Where the Place of Payment Is Omitted, the note is presumed to be payable where the maker resides ; and where a bank is named it will be presumed, in the absence of evi- dence appearing on the face of the note to the contrary, that it is situated in the town where the maker resides. Baily v. Birkhofer, 123 Iowa 59. Holder May Supply Omission. — Cox v. Alex- ander, 30 Oregon 438. 132. 1. Holmes v. Ft. Gaines Bank, 120 Ala. 493. 3. Alabama Statute. — Carroll v. Warren, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 687. See also Scott v. Taul, 115 Ala. 529. Sufficiency of Designation of Place of Payment. — Anniston L. & T. Co. v. Stickney, 108 Ala. 146. 4. Indiana Statute. — Bradley v. Whicker, 23 Ind. App. 380 ; Mitchell v. St. Mary, 148 Ind. in ; Rhodes v. Webb-Jameson Co., 19 Ind. App. 195; La Follette Coal, etc., Co. v. Whiting Foundry Equipment Co., 25 Ind. App. 647 ; Huntington First Nat. Bank v. Henry, 156 Ind. 1 ; Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 26 Ind. App. 71 ; Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130; Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, (Ind. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 290 ; Petersburg First Nat. Bank v. Beach, (Ind. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 287 ; Nicely v. Commercial Bank, 15 Ind. App. 563, 57 Am. St. Rep. 245. 5. Kentucky. — McCarty v. Louisville Bank- ing Co., 100 Ky. 4; Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265 ; Gaines v. Deposit Bank, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 438 ; Graham v. Louisville City Nat. Bank, 103 Ky. 641 ; M. V. Monarch Co. v. Terre Haute First Nat. Bank, 105 Ky. 336; Louisville Banking Co. v. Asher, 112 Ky. 138, 99 Am. St. Rep. 283 ; Magoffin v . Boyle Nat. Bank, (Ky. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 702; Brown v. Crofton, 76 S. W. Rep. 372, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 753; Davis v. Boone County Deposit Bank, 80 S. W. Rep. 161, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2078; Burns v. Sparks, 82 S. W. Rep. 425, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 688. Sufficiency of Statement of Bank's Name. — Graham v. Louisville City Nat. Bank, 103 Ky. 641. Location of Bank in the State Presumed. — Graham v. Louisville City Nat. Bank, 103 Ky. 641. Note Must Be Discounted at Bank Incor- porated under State Laws. — Cunningham w, Potter, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 493. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 133-136 1 32. (5) Expression of Time of Payment. — See note 8. How Time of Payment Usually Expressed. — See notes 9, IO. 133. Variance Between Nate and Marginal Memorandum. — See note 2. No Time of Payment Specified. — See note 3. 134. (7) Words of Negotiability. — See note 1. Any Expression Is Sufficient. — See note 2. Statutes. — See note 3. 135. (8) Expression of Consideration — Value Received. — See note 3. 136. By Statute in Missouri. — See note 4. Patent-right Notes; — See note 6. 132. 7. Barger v. Farnham, 130 Mich. 487 (construing West Virginia contract). 8. Necessity of Expressing Time of Payment, under Negotiable Instruments Law. — Westberg v. Chicago Lumber, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 589 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 9. Brookshire v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 164. See "also Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246. On Call. — Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Sufficiency of Expression of Time. — Moreland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293. 10. A note dated the 7th of November, 1895, and payable " 21st of November next," is pay- able on the 21st of November, 1896, and not on the 21st of November, 1895. Drapeau v. Pomin- ville, 11 Quebec Super. Ct. 326. 133. 2. Dark v. Middlebrook, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 963. 3. No Time of Payment Expressed — Payable on Demand — Georgia. — Morrison v. Morrison, 102 Ga. 170; Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604. Louisiana. — Nott v. State Nat. Bank, 51 La. Ann. 871. Montana. — Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249. New Jersey. — Adams v. Adams, 55 N. J. Eq. 42. New York. — Niles v. Bradley, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 172; McLeod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 558, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 131. Pennsylvania. — Messmore v. Morrison, 172 Pa. St. 300. Texas. — Brookshire v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 164. Wisconsin. — Westberg v. Chicago Lumber, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 589. Canada. — McPherson v. Johnston, 3 British Columbia 465. 134. 1. Necessity of Negotiable "Words. — Murphy v. Arkansas, etc., Land, etc., Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 723; Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406, 64 Am. St.' Rep. 246; Petrie v. Miller, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 17 (under Neg. Inst. Law), affirmed 173 N. Y. 596 ; Ellis v. Hahn, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 395. See also Rhodes v. Webb-Jameson Co., 19 Ind. App. 19s; Ryals v. Johnson County Sav. Bank, 106 Ga. 52S ; Stadler v. Helena First Nat. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582. Under Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, § 733. —Jacobs v. Gibson, 77 Mo. App. 244. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, to be negotiable, the instrument must be payable to order or to bearer. Zander v. New York Se- curity, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 98, affirmed 81 N. Y. App. Div. 63s, 178 N. Y. 208; Westberg v. Chicago Lumber, etc., Co., 117 Wis. 589 (under Neg. Inst. Law). " Bearer " Denned. — Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Snow, 187 Mass. 159 (under Neg. Inst. Law). 2. What Are Sufficient Words of Negotiability. — Whitney Nat. Bank v. Cannon, 52 La. Ann. 1484. See also Boley v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 64 111. App. 305. Illustrations. — Note payable to A " or his assignee " is negotiable. Murphy v. Arkansas, etc., Land, etc., Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 723. 3. In Colorado. — Patent Title Co. v. Stratton, 89 Fed. Rep. 174. Illinois Statute. — Russell v. Bosworth, 106 111. App. 314. In Georgia. — Ryals v. Johnson County Sav. Bank, 106 Ga. 525. Canadian Statute. — 'See Desy v. Daly, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 183. 135. 3. Instrument Need Not Express Con- sideration. — Choate v. Stevens, 116 Mich. 28; Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249 ; McLeod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 558, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 131 ; Larra- way v. Harvey, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 97. The Expression " for Value Received " is suffi- cient to place the note without the statute of frauds. Booth v. Dexter Steam Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369. " For Value Received " in Guaranty, Sufficient Expression of Consideration. — Osborne v. Gul- likson, 64 Minn. 218. 136. 4. Missouri Statutes. — Harkness v. Jones, 71 Mo. App. 289 ; Crawford v. Johnson, 87 Mo. App. 478; Lowrey v. Danforth, 95 Mo. App. 441. 6. Arkansas Statute. — Under the provisions of Sand. & H. Dig., § 493, that a negotiable instru- ment given by a citizen of the state in payment for an interest in a patent right shall be abso- lutely void unless it shall show upon its face that it was executed for such a consideration, a note given by a citizen of the state for an in- terest in a patent right which fails to comply with this requirement is void, although in the hands of a bona fide holder. Wyatt v. Wallace, 67 Ark. 575; Woods v. Carl, (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 621. The purpose of this statute is to save to the vendee of a patent right all the defenses he may have to an action on his note given there- for and to prevent the loss of these defenses by a transfer of the note to an innocent holder before maturity. The failure to comply with this statute does not affect the validity of the sale, but only renders the note absolutely void, and the vendor may recover whatever may be 569 137-139 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 137. See note i. 138. (12) Attestation. — See note 2. 139. (13) Effect of Omissions and Irregularities Merely Formal. — See note i. due him on the contract of sale from the vendee. Roth v. Merchants', etc., Bank, 70 Ark. 200, 91 Am. St. Rep. 80. Georgia. — Under Van Epps's Code Supp., § 6650 et seq., a note given for the purchase price of a patent right is not void in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for failure to express the consideration. Smith v. Wood, in Ga. 221; Parr v. Erickson, 115 Ga. 873. It is only where the consideration is ex- pressed in the note that the indorsee, before maturity and for value, takes it subject to all defenses. Parr v. Erickson, 113 Ga. 873. Indiana Statute — Failure to State Consideration Benders Note Voidable. — Lofland v. Goben, 16 lnd. App. 67. Under Burns's Annot. Stat. 1901, §§ 8130, 8131, the statute is extended to the sale of the right to manufacture, use, or sell a patented article whether the right, or either of them, be by sale, grant, or license, exclusive or nonexclu- sive, or shall form the whole or any part of the consideration, and requires the additional indorsement, " Given for the right to manufac- ture a patented article," or words which clearly state the consideration for which the note was given. Petersburg First Nat. Bank v. Beach, (lnd. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 287; Kniss v. Holbrook, 16 lnd. App. 229. A bona fide purchaser for value without notice that the note was given for a patent right may recover on it. Pape v. Hartwig, 23 lnd. App. 333. The maker of a note given for a patent right, who fails to place on the note the requisite words, is guilty of negligence and cannot defend against it in the' hands of a bona fide holder for value without notice and before maturity. Pape v. Hartwig, 23 lnd. App. 333. A Sale of the Exclusive Bight to Sell a Patented Article is not within the purview of the statute. People's State Bank v. Jones, 26 lnd. 583, 84 Am. St. Rep. 310. Kansas Statute. — The taking of a promissory note, the consideration of which is the sale of a patent right, or what is claimed by the vendor to be a patent right, without inserting therein the words, " Given for a patent right," is, under the Kansas statute, a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment; and no recovery can be had thereon by one who vio- lates the statute, nor by a transferee of the note who has knowledge that the law was vio- lated. Pinney v. Concordia First Nat. Bank, 68 Kan. 223. See also Pinney v. Concordia First Nat. Bank, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 151. Kentucky Statute — Peddler's Notes. — Under Ky. Stat., § 4223, requiring all notes given for articles or rights sold by a peddler to bear the words " peddler's note " on the face, a note not bearing such words is void in the hands of the payee or third persons. Nunn v. Citizens' Bank, 107 Ky. 262. See also Bohon -a. Brown, 101 Ky. 354, 72 Am. St. Rep. 420 ; Burns v. Sparks, 82 S. W. Rep. 425, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 688. -The failure to place the words upon the note is no defense where the note has indorsed upon it the express assurance of the maker that there is no defense. And a bona fide purchaser without notice of the consideration may enforce the note against the maker. Billington v. Mc- Colpin, (Ky. 1900) 60 S. W. Rep. 923. Note Not Enforceable by Purchaser with Notice. — Hays v. Walker, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 1099.. Missouri Statute Not Applicable to Notes Given Before Its Enactment. — Clark v. Porter, 90 Mo. App. 143. Under New York Laws of 1877, c. 65, a note given for a patent right which does not contain the statutory words is not for that reason ille- gal, but in the hands of a bona fide purchaser - for value before maturity, without notice of the consideration, is entitled to the protection ac- corded to commercial paper by the law mer- chant. Paddock v. Coates, (County Ct.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 305. Ohio Statute. — Allen v. Johnson, n Ohio Cir. Dec. 42, citing 4 Am. and En&. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 136. Pennsylvania Statute. — An omission of the statement of the consideration renders the note subject to the same defenses in the hands of a purchaser with notice as in the hands of the original holder. Troxell v. Malin, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 483. The note is merely voidable, however, and is enforceable in the hands of a bona fide pur- chaser without notice. Brown v. Pegram, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 577. No Eecovery under Tennessee Statute. — Webb v. Tarver, 2 Tenn. Ch. App. 366. Canadian Statute — - Effect of Omission of Words " Given for Patent Bight." — Craig v. Samuel, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 278. Subsequent Inscription of the Words on the Note Does Not Validate It. — Lefebvre v. Titemore, 16 Quebec Super. Ct. 248. 137. 1. Constitutionality of Statutes. — Ken- tucky statute (§ 4223) constitutional. Bohon v. Brown, 101 Ky. 354, 72 Am. St. Rep. 420; Nunn v. Citizens' Bank, 107 Ky. 262; Hays v. Walker, 76 S. W. Rep. 1099, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1045. Arkansas Statute Constitutional. — Woods v. Carl, (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 621. The Pennsylvania statute is unconstitutional as obstructing exercise of right granted by fed- eral statute. Pegram v. American Alkali Co., 122 Fed. Rep. 1000, affirmed 125 Fed. Rep. 577, 60 C. C. A. 383. 13§. 2. Attestation Necessary under Okla. Stat., § 2690, to Note Signed by Mark. — Sivils v. Taylor, 12 Okla. 47. Failure to Attest Note Signed by Mark Does Not Invalidate It. — Wright v. Forgy, 126 Ala. 389. Attestation After Death of Maker by Witness Who Is Also Payee Is Not Sufficient. — Chadwell v. Chadwell, 98 Ky. 643. 139. 1. Durant v. Murdock, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 114. Omission of Words "After Date" in Interest 570 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 139 144 139. c. Memoranda on Bills and Notes — (i) General Principles — Parol Evidence as to Circumstances of Making memorandum. — See note 3. 140. Presumption as to Time of Making. — See note 2. (2) Contemporaneous Memoranda Modifying Instrument — When a Part of the Instrument. — See notes 4, 5. 6. 141. Illustrations of Effect of Memoranda. — See notes 4, 8. 143. See notes 1, 2. Adding Memorandum as to Place of Payment. — See note 8. (3) Memoranda Not Affecting the Instrument — intended as Earmarks, Etc. — See note 9. 143. Illustrations. — See note 1. 144. d. Separate Written and Oral Agreements — (i) Separate Written Agreements to Control Bills and Notes — General Eule as to Construing Together Separate Instruments. — See note 2. Bule Applied to Bills and Notes. — See note 3. Clause Supplied. — Durant v. Murdock, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 114. Omission of Word " Date " Supplied. — Miller v. Cavanaugh, 99 Ky. 377, 59 Am. St. Rep. 463. Omission of Word " Days " May Be Supplied. — Weems v. Parker, 60 111. App. 167. 139. 3. Parol Evidence as to Memorandum. — Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286. 140. 2. Memorandum Presumed Contemporary. — Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286 ; National Bank of Commerce v. Feeney, 9 S. Dak. 550. 4. Contract to Be Gathered from All Within Its Corners. — Anniston L. & T. Co. v. Stickney, 108 Ala. 146 ; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Neb. 553. 5. D'Esterre v. Brooklyn, 90 Fed. Rep. 593, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 139-142; Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471. Memorandum on Back of Note. — Bowie v . Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286 ; Heaton v. Aiuley, 108 Iowa 112; Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Neb. 456 ; Waldorf v. Simpson, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 297; Gazlay v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501; National Bank of Commerce v. Feeney, 9 S. Dak. 550. 6. Contemporaneous Memorandum Enters into Contract — District of Columbia. — Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286. Iowa. — Heaton v. Ainley, 108 Iowa 112. Kansas. — See also Bliss v. Young, 7 Kan. App. 728. Missouri. — Black v. Epstein, 93 Mo. App. 459- Nebraska. — Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Neb. 456 ; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Neb. 553. New York. — Waldorf v. Simpson, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 297. Pennsylvania. — Coates v. Potts, 184 Pa. St. 618; Gazlay v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501. South Dakota. — National Bank of Commerce v. Feeney, 9 S. Dak. 550. Memorandum " Negotiable or Transferable " Benders Note Negotiable.— Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633. 141. 4. Memorandum as to Terms of Payment. — Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286; Black v. Epstein, 93 Mo. App. 459 ; Coates v. Potts, 184 Pa. St. 618. 8. Memoranda Introducing Contingency. — Biegler v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 62 111. App. 560, affirmed 164 111. 197. An indorsement made by the payee upon the note at the time that it was delivered to him, that the note should become void at the payee's death, does not affect the right of recovery of ■ the payee's intestate, where the indorsement was made without consideration. Dimon v. Keery, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 318. 142. 1, Aspen First Nat. Bank v. Mineral Farm Consol. Min. Co., 17 Colo. App. 461, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 141, 142. See also Biegler v. Merchant's L. & T. Co., 164 111. 197. 2. Aspen First Nat. Bank v. Mineral Farm Consol. Min. Co., 17 Colo. App. 461, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 141, 142; Biegler v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 164 111. 197. 8. Addition of Place of Payment a Material Alteration. — Carroll v. Warren, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 687. 9. Hudson v. Emmons, 107 Mich. 549. See Hathaway v. Rogers, 112 Iowa 638. Memoranda Showing Credits Do Not Affect Negotiability. — Smith u. Shippey, 182 Pa. St. 24. 143. 1. Memorandum by Indorser Limiting Transferability of No Effect. — Herrick v. Ed- wards, 106 Mo. App. 633. 144. 2. Separate Instruments Construed To- gether. — Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160. See also Zimmer v. Chew, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 504. 3. Separate Instruments Construed with Bill or Note — United States. — Levy, etc.,' Mule Co. v. Kauffman, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 170. Alabama. — Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala. 279. California. — Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681. Colorado. — Frost v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 322. District of Columbia. — See Brewer v. Slater, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 48. Georgia. — Montgomery v. Hunt, 99 Ga. 499. Illinois. — Boley v. Lake St. EI. R. Co., 64 111. App. 305 ; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 18^ 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Adams v. Long, 114 111. App. 277, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 144. Indiana. — Middaugh v. Wilson, 30 Ind. App. 112. Kansas. — Solomon Solar Salt Co. v. Barber, 58 Kan. 419; Cabbell v. Knote, 2 Kan. App. 68; Piersol v. Shelley, 3 Kan. App. 386. J7i 145-147 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 145. Provisions of Contemporary Writings Held Controlling. — See notes I, 2, 3, 5. Bepugnant. Provisions in Contemporary Instruments. — See note 6. 146. See note 1. Trust Deeds or Mortgages and Notes. — See notes 2, 3. 147. (2) Parol Agreements Intended to Control Bills and Notes — (a) Con- temporary Parol Agreements Controlling Terms Inadmissible. — See note I. Kentucky. — Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265. Maine. — American Gas, etc., Mach. Co. v. Wood, 90 Me. 516. Montana. — See Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4. Nebraska. — Garnett v. Meyers, 65 Neb. 280 ; Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 292, 296, 101 Am. St. . Rep. 620 ; Kendall v. Selby, 66 Neb. 60, 103 Am. St. Rep. 697; Roblee v. Union Stockyards Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 61 ; Allen v. Dunn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 680. North Carolina. — Battery Park Bank v. Loughran, 122 N. Car. 668. Oregon. — r- Haines v. Cadwell, 40 Oregon 229. Texas. — Robertson v. Parrish, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897; 39 S. W. Rep. 646. Wisconsin. — Thorpe v. Mindeman, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 417. Canada. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345- Indorsee Without Notice Not Bound. — Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626. Persons Taking with Notice Bound by Conditions in Collateral Security. — Roblee v. Union Stock- yards Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 61. 145. 1. See also Glass v. Adoue, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 798. Compare Ferris v. Johnson, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1014, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 982. Contemporaneous Contract Providing for Falling Bue of All of Series of notes on default in pay- ment of one admissible; Markey v. Corey, 108 Mich. 184, 62 Am. St. Rep. 698. 2. See also Boley v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 64 111. App. 305 ; Robertson v. Parrish, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 646. 3. Martin v. Monroe, 107 Ga. 330. Contemporary Mortgage Showing Representative Capacity of Maker of Note. — Cabbell v. Knote, 2 Kan. App. 68. Note and Mortgage — Stipulation in Mortgage that Mortgagor Shall Pay Taxes, Etc. — In Ne- braska it was formerly held that the negotia- bility of a note was not affected by a stipula- tion in the mortgage that the mortgagor should pay taxes, assessments, insurance, etc. Brad- bury v. Kinney, 63 Neb. 754 ; Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 291, 101 Am. St. Rep. 620; Garnett v. Meyers, 65 Neb. 280 ; Kendall v. Selby, 66 Neb. 60, 103 Am. St. Rep. 697. The recent decisions do not, however, follow this view, and it is now held that such stipula- tions render the note nonnegotiable. Allen v. Dunn, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 680 ; Con- sterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 620, vacating judgment 65 Neb. 292 ; Gar- nett v. Meyers, 65 Neb. 288, vacating judgment 65 Neb. 283. See also Roblee v. Union Stock- yards Nat. Bank, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 61. In Kansas such stipulations are also held to render the note nonnegotiable. Wistrand v. Parker, 7 Kan. App. 562 ; Wright v. Shimek, 8 Kan. App. 350; Jones v. Dulick, 8 Kan. App. 8SS» SS Pac. Rep. 522. And in Montana. Cornish v. Woolverton, (Mont. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 4. And in Utah also. Donaldson v. Grant, 15 Utah 231. In Other Jurisdictions it is held that the stipu- lation does not affect the negotiability of the note. Frost v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 322; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Thorpe v. Minde- man, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 417 (under the Negotiable Instruments Law). See also Cox v. Cayan, 117 Mich. 599, 72 Am. St. Rep. SS5. 5. Agreement Rendering Note Conditional. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345. Agreement Executed Before Note is admissible where it is part of the transaction. Smith v. Adams, (Ky. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 531. 6. Bepugnant Provisions. — Hamilton v. Fow- ler, (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. Rep. 18; Bull v. Ed- ward Thompson Co., 99 Ga. 134; Hawes v. Mulholland, 78 Mo. App. 493 ; Kennedy v. Gib- son, 68 Kan. 612. See also American Gas, etc., Mach. Co. v. Wood, 90 Me. 516. Validity of Note Not Affected by Invalidity of Mortgage. — In an action upon a note and a mortgage securing the same, the plaintiff is en- titled to judgment for the amount of the note, regardless of the decision of the court as to the validity of the mortgage, when it is con- ceded that the note was executed by the de- fendant, that the plaintiff is the owner and holder thereof, and that it is due and unpaid. Moors v. Sanford, 2 Kan. App. 243. 146. 1. Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Neb. 456 ; Remington v. Detroit^ Dental Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307. See also Hawes v. Mulhol- land, 78 Mo. App. 493. 2. Notes Due for All Purposes. — Evans v. Baker, 5 Kan. App. 68 ; Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 296, 10 1 Am. St. Rep. 620. See also Battery Park Bank v. Loughran, 122 N. Car. 668. 3. Owings v. McKenzie, 133 Mo. 323; West- minster College v. Peirsol, 161 Mo. 270 ; Law- son v. Cundiff, 81 Mo. App. 169; McMillan v. Grayston, 83 Mo. App. 425 ; Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 292, 101 Am. St. Rep. 620. See also Hibernia Sav., etc., Soe. v. Thornton, 117 Cal. 481. Effect of Provision in Mortgage for Payment of Costs and Taxes. — See Hunter v. Clarke, 184 I1L 158. 75 Am. St. Rep. 160. 147. 1. Parol Agreement Varying Note or Bill Inadmissible — United States. — Calm v. Dolley, 105 Fed. Rep. 836; Levy, etc., Mule Co. v. Kauffman, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 170; Franklin v. Browning, 117 Fed. Rep. 226, 54 C. C. A. 2g8; Earle v. Enos, 130 Fed. Rep. 467. Alabama. — Blanks v. Moore, 139 Ala. 624; Brewton v. Glass, 116 Ala. 629. 572 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 117 ISO 14:7. Illustrations of the Bale Against Parol Agreements. 149. See notes i, 2. 150. See note 3. See notes 2, 3. Arkansas. — Graham v. Remmel, (Ark. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 899. California. — Henehan v. Hart, 127 Cal. 656; Easton Packing Co. v. Kennedy, 131 Cal. xviii, 63 Pac. Rep. 130. Colorado. — Champion Empire Min. Co. v. Bird, 7 Colo. App. 523 ; Cooper v. German Nat. Bank, 9 Colo. App. 169 ; Mcintosh-Huntington Co. v. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393; Scott v. Wood, 14 Colo. App. 341. Connecticut. — Trumbull v. O'Hara, 71 Conn. 172: Burns, etc.. Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 71 Conn. 742, 71 Am. St. Rep. 235. District of Columbia. — Metzerott v. Ward, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514. Georgia. — Johnson v. Cobb, 100 Ga. 139; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Wynne, (Ga. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 389. Illinois. — Mumford v. Tolman, 157 111. 258; Moore v. Prussing, 165 111. 319; Sexton v. Barrie, 102 III. App. 586. Indiana. — McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Yoeman, 26 Ind. App. 41s ; Prescott v. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 72 Am. St. Rep. 291. Ioua. — Marsh v. Chown, 104 Iowa 556. Kentucky. — Gray Tie, etc., Co. v. Farmers' Bank, 109 Ky. 694; Crane v. Williamson, in Ky. 271 ; Beattyville Bank v. Roberts, 78 S. W. Rep. 901, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1796. Massachusetts. — Torpey v. Tebo, 184 Mass. 307; Henry Wood's Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 Mass. 443, 73 Am. St. Rep. 305. Michigan. — Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Vaughan, 115 Mich. 156. See Breckenridge First State Sav. Bank v. Webster, 121 Mich. 149; Central Sa?. Bank v. O'Connor, 132 Mich. 578, 102 Am. St. Rep. 433. Missouri. — Barnard State Bank v. Fesler, 89 Mo. App. 217; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305 ; Milan First Nat. Bank v. Wells, 98 Mo. App. 573 ; St. Louis Third Nat. Bank v. Reich- ert, 1 01 Mo. App. 242; Poindexter v. McDowell, (Mo. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1133- Nebraska. — Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Neb. 456; Aultman v. Hawk, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 695. New York. — Mead v. National Bank, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 102; McLeod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 558, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 131 ; Block v. Stevens, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 246. North Carolina. — Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. Car. 721; Western Carolina Bank v. Moore, 138 N. Car. 529. Ohio. — Lillie v. Bates, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 54. Pennsylvania. — Weaver v. Paul, 4 Pa. Dist. 492 ; Wolf v. Rosenbach, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 587 ; Wolf v. Wolf, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 590 ; Dodge v. Chessman, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 604; Plunkett v. Roehm, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 83 ; Gazley v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501 ; Mahanoy City First Nat. Bank v. Dick, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 445. South Dakota. — Schmitz v. Hawkeye Gold Min. Co., 8 S. Dak. 544. Texas. — Ablowich v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 273 ; Bailey v. Rockwall County Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ, App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 530; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Cammer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 625. Washington. — Shuey v. Adair, 18 Wash. 188, 63 Am. St. Rep. 879. Wisconsin. — Milwaukee First Nat. Bank v. Finck, 100 Wis. 446; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Reif, 116 Wis. 471. Canada. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345; Hamilton v. Jones, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 496 ; Letellier u. Cantin, 1 1 Quebec Super. Ct. 64. 147. 2. Note Intended as a memorandum or Beceipt — Arkansas. — Grahams. Remmel, (Ark. 190S) 88 S. W. Rep. 899. Colorado. — ■ Mcintosh-Huntington Co. v. Rice, 13 Colo. App. 393. Connecticut. — Trumbull v. O'Hara, 71 Conn. 172; Burns, etc., Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 7 1 Conn. 742, 71 Am. St. Rep. 235. Michigan. — Central Sav. Bank v. O'Connor, 132 Mich. 578, 102 Am. St. Rep. 433. Missouri. — Bernard State Bank v. Fesler, 89 Mo. App. 217; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305. Nebraska. — Aultman u. Hawk, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 695. North Carolina. — Western Carolina Bank v. Moore, 138 N. Car. 529. Ohio. — Lillie v. Bates, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 54- Pennsylvania. — ■ Plunkett v. Roehm, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 83 ; Gazlay v. Riegel, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 501 ; Mahanoy City First Nat. Bank v. Dick, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 445. An Additional Verbal Agreement, by which under certain circumstances the note given for an in- surance policy was to be canceled and another note given for a smaller policy, is admissible. Bresee v. Crumpton, 121 N. Car. 122. 3. Agreement Making Payment Contingent. — Johnson v. Cobb, 100 Ga. 139; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Wynne, (Ga. 1905) 51 S. E. Rep. 389; Moore v. Prussing, 165 111. 319; St. Louis Third Nat. Bank u. Reichert, 101 Mo. App. 242. 149. 1. Moore v. Prussing, 165 111. 319; Beattyville Bank v. Roberts, 78 S. W. Rep. 901, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1796; Wooley v. Cobb, 165 Mass. 503 ; Pratt, etc., Co., v. American Pneumatic Tool Co., 50 N. Y. App. Div. 369, affirmed 166 N. Y. 588; Block v. Stevens, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 246 ; Wolf v. Rosenbach, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 587; Wolf v. Wolf, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 590; Letellier v. Cantin, 11 Quebec Super. Ct. 64. See also Citizens' Sav. Bank -u. Vaughan, 115 Mich. 156; Stone v. Billings, 167 111. 170. Agreement for Renewal — California Statute. — Henehan v. Hart, 127 Cal. 656. 2. Parol Condition as to Amount. — Scott v. Wood, 14 Colo. App. 341 ; Ablowich v. Green- ville Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 273. 150. 3. Beattyville Bank v. Roberts, 78 S. W. Rep. 901, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1796; Henry Wood's Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 Mass. 443, 73 Am. St. Rep. 305. Compare National Bank v. Byrnes, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 100, affirmed 178 N. Y. 561 ; Draper v. Horton, 22 R. I. 5,92, 573 150-154 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 150. (b) Limitations of the Rule Against Parol Agreements — aa. General State- ment. — See notes 5, 6, 9. 151. See note 1. bb. Parol Evidence to Show Failure of, or Conditional, Delivery. — bee notes 3, 4. 153. cc Executed Parol Agreements as to Satisfaction. — See note 2. dd. Parol Evidence -as to Incomplete, Erroneously Framed, or Ambiguous Instruments. — See note 4. 153. Omissions and Erroneous Terms in Bills and Notes — Correction in Equity. — See note 1. Mistake Not Provable at Law. — See note 2. 154. Ambiguous Instruments. — S&e note 2. ee. Parol Evidence as to Matters or Agreements Collateral to Instrument. — See note 6. (3) Subsequent Written or Oral Agreements Controlling Bills and Notes. — See notes 8, 9. 150. 5. Connecticut. — ■ Trumbull v. O'Hara, 71 Conn. 172; Burns, etc., Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 71 Conn. 742, 71 Am. St. Rep. 235. District of Columbia. — Randle v. Davis Coal, etc., Co., 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 357- Missouri. — Poindexter v. McDowell, (Mo. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1133- New York. — Simmons v. Thompson, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 559. North Dakota. — Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, 11 N. Dak. 10, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693. South Carolina. — Copeland v . Copeland, 64 S. Car. 251. Canada. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345- 6. MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345- 9. Martin v. McCune, 42 W. N. C, (Pa.) 5"- 151. 1. See also Burns, etc., Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 71 Conn. 742, 71 Am. St. Rep. 235. 3. Instrument Never Delivered. — Hurt v. Ford, (Mo. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 671 ; Hagan v. Bigler, 5 Okla. 575. 4. Instrument Conditionally Delivered — Ar- kansas. — Coffin v. Black, 67 Ark. 219. Colorado. — See Champion Empire Min. Co. v. Bird, 7 Colo. App. 523. Connecticut. — New Haven Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Pulp, etc., Co., 76 Conn. 126; Trumbull v. O'Hara, 71 Conn. 172; Burns, etc., Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 71 Conn. 742, 71 Am. St. Rep. 235- District of Columbia. — Randle v. Davis Coal, etc., Co., 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 357. Illinois. — Moore v. Prussing, 165 111. 319. Michigan. — Jordan v. Newton, 116 Mich. 674. Minnesota. — Mendenhall v. Ulrich, (Minn. 1905) 101 N. W. Rep. 1057. Missouri. — Hurt v. Ford, (Mo. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 671. New York. — Megowan v. Peterson, 173 N. Y. 1 ; Williams v. Syracuse First Nat. Bank, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 239, affirmed 167 N. Y. 594; Pratt, etc., Co. v. American Pneumatic Tool Co., 50 N. Y. App. Div. 369, affirmed 166 N. Y. 588; Utica City Nat. Bank v. Tallman, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 480, affirmed 172 N. Y. 642; Andrews v. Hess, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 194 ; Twelfth Ward Bank v. Rogers, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 602. South Dakota. — McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Faulkner, 7 S. Dak. 363, 58 Am. St. Rep. 839. Canada. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N. W. Ter. 345. Parol Evidence to Show Purpose of Delivery Admissible, — Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga, 60. Parol Evidence Admissible to Show Delivery as Escrow. — Daggett v. Simonds, 173 Mass. 340. 152. 2. Executed Agreement in Satisfaction. — Indianapolis First Nat. Bank v. New, 146 Ind. 411; McQuarrie v. Brand, 28 Ont. 69. 4, Crane v. Williamson, 11 1 Ky. 271 ; Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32; Andrews v. Robertson, m Wis. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 870. See also Vliet v. Siman- ton, 63 N. J. L 458. 153. 1. Prescott v. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 72 Am. St. Rep. 291 ; Jurgensen v. Carlsen, 97 Iowa 627; Turpin v. Gresham, 106 Iowa 187; Beland v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assoc, 157 Mo. 593. See also Capital Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Swan, 100 Iowa 718. Interest. — Where both the maker and the payee intended that the note should bear no interest and supposed that this would result from an omission to insert any reference to in- terest, equity will, at the instance of the maker, in an action upon the note by a third person to whom it had been indorsed, correct the mis- take, where the indorsee has notice and is not a purchaser for value. Loudermilk v. Louder- milk, 98 Ga. 780. 2. See Hackemack v. Wiebrock, 172 111. 98, affirming 71 111. App. 170. Amount — Parol Evidence Admissible to Prove Mistake.— Henry v. Sansom, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 122. 154. 2. Carr v. Jones, 29 Wash. 78. 6. Proof of Collateral Agreement. — Drescher v. Fulham, n Colo. App. 62; Carlton v. White, 99 Ga. 384 ; Sloan v. Gibbes, 56 S. Car. 480, 76 Am. St. Rep. 559 ; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Cammer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 625. See also Mader v. Cool, 14 Ind. App. 299, 56 Am. St. Rep. 304; Fisher v. Diehl, 94 Md. i 14 ; Storz v. Kinzler, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 372 ; Clinch Valley Coal, etc., Co. v. Willing, 180 Pa. St. 165, 57 Am. St. Rep. 626. 8. Heath v. Achey, 96 Ga. 438 ; Wellington Nat. Bank v. Thomson, 9 Kan. App. 667; 574 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 155 160 155. See notes i, 2, 3, 4. 158. /. STAMPS — General and Historical. — See note 7. Requirements of the Statute — Affixing the Stamp. — See notes IO, II. 160. Constitutionality — Whether Applicable to State Courts. — See note 6. Fishery. Stevens, 143 Mo. 191, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 154; Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471 ; Foster v. Furlong, 8 N. Dak. 282. See Bitter u. Butchers, etc., Ice Mfg. Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 423.. Acceptance of Offer to Extend Essential. — Travis v. Watson, 134 Mich. 249. Signature of Both Parties Essential to Agree- ment. — Hass v. Lobstein, 108 111. App. 217. Retention of Title to Interest. — The payee of a note which provides for the payment of interest annually may in writing assign to an- other the principal and reserve to himself the interest with the right to collect the same, and this although the note provides that the prin- cipal shall become due on default in the pay- ment of any interest instalment. In such a case a grant by the payee of an extension of time for the payment of the interest does not render the principal immediately due. Scott v. Liddell, 98 Ga. 24. 154. 9. California. — Hubboldt Sav., etc., Soc. v. Dowd, 137 Cal. 408. District of Columbia. — Reed v. Tierney, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 165; Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. Georgia. — Heath v. Achey, 96 Ga. 438. Indiana. — McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Yoeman, 26 Ind. App. 415 ; Bucklen v. John- son, 19 Ind. App. 406. See Hodges v. Truax, 19 Ind. App. 651. Iowa. — Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co., 117 Iowa 157. Kansas. — Lorimer v. Fairchild, 68 Kan. 328 ; Ott v. Anderson, g Kan. App. 320 ; Wellington Nat. Bank v. Thomson, 9 Kan. App. 667. Missouri. — Fisher v. Stevens, 143 Mo. 191, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) '54- Nebraska. — Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471. North Dakota. — Foster v. Furlong, 8 N. Dak. 282. South Dakota.- — Whiffen v. Hollister, 12 S. Dak. 68. Texas. — -See Aiken v. Posey, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 607. See also Tunstall v. Clifton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 244. Canada. — McGregor v. McKenzie, 30 Nova Scotia, 214. Consideration Essential. — Howe v. Klein, 89 Me. 376; Peachy v. Witter, 131 Cal. 316; Conk- lin v. Lorimer, 10 Kan. App. 550. Consideration Essential to Support Agreement. — Price v. Mitchell, 23 Wash. 742. See the title Consideration. Release of Joint Maker. — An agreement to release one of two makers of a joint note from liability thereon is not binding unless such agreement is supported by a consideration. Fowler v. Coker, 107 Ga. 817. Sufficiency of Consideration. — Ferris v. John- son, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1014, 10 De- troit Leg. N. 982. See also Kearby v. Hopkins, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 16$, Agreement for Extension Not Presumed from Payments of Interest Made after Maturity. — Amberg v. Nachtway, 92 111. App. 608. Payment of Interest in Advance Sufficient Con- sideration. — Wyatt v. Dufrene, 106 111. App. 214. 155. 1. Reed v. Tierney, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 165. Person Not Taking with Notice Not Bound. — Lemoore Bank v. Gulart, (Cal. 1898) 54 Pac. Rep. 1 1 11. Effect on Negotiability. — Where, at or about the maturity of a negotiable instrument, the time of payment of the indebtedness evidenced thereby is extended by a written agreement of the parties upon a valid consideration, the agreement being independent of and collateral to the original contract, such extension does not continue the commercial characteristics of the note as live unmatured negotiable paper. Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471. 2. Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Yoeman, 26 Ind. App. 415; Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471 ; Foster v. Furlong, 8 N. Dak. 282 ; McGregor v. McKenzie, 30 Nova Scotia 214. Compare Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471. Where Indorser Does Not Consent. — An indor- ser of a negotiable note is not bound by a con- tract, entered into without his consent, between the maker and a subsequent indorsee, which changes the time when the note may mature, and his liability as indorser must be determined and fixed in accord with the original contract of indorsement. Evans v. Baker, 5 Kan. App. 68. Proof of Agreement for Extension. — Marshall, etc., Bank v. Child, 76 Minn. 173. Burden of Proving Such an Agreement on the Defendant. — Haines v. Snedigar, no Cal. 18. An Extension for More than a Year must be in writing. Tunstall v. Clifton, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 244. Extension Must Be for Definite Time. — ■ Union Nat. Bank v. Cross, 100 Wis. 174. Agreement for Extension — Tender of Renewal Note. — White v. Sabiston, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 345- 3. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Agreement for Extension. — Walley v. Deseret Nat. Bank, 14 Utah 305. 4. Medium of Payment. — Dunklee v. Good- nough, 68 Vt. 113. 158. 7. The most recent of these statutes is the U. S. Internal Rev. Act 1898. Ebert v. Gitt, 95 Md. 186. 10. V. S. Rev. Stat., § 3226 — Instruments to Which Applicable. — Granby Mercantile Co. v. Webster, 98 Fed. Rep. 604. 11. By Whom and When Stamp Affixed. — Granby Mercantile Co. v. Webster, 98 Fed. Rep. 604. 160. 6. Stamp Act Does Not Apply to State Courts. — Dillingham v. Parks, 30 Ind. App. 61 ; Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488, 575 161-174 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 161. Omission of Stamp — Intent. — See notes I, 2, 3. 163. How, and by Whom, the Want of Stamp May Be Set Up. — See notes 3, 6. 2. Capacity and Authority of Parties — a. General Statement. — See note 10. 163. c. Persons under Disability or with Limited Power — (i) Lunatics — General Doctrine of Lunatic's Contracts. — See notes 4, 5, 6, 7. 164. Liability of Lunatic on Negotiable Paper. — See notes I, 2. Bights of Innocent Holder. — See notes 3, 4. 165. (2) Druftken Persons. — See notes 2, 5. (3) Infants. — See note 8. 166. See note 2. 167. Infant Payee. — See note 3. Liability of Adults on Instruments to Which Infants Are Parties. — See note 4- 168. (5) Married Women — (a) Generally. — See note 3. 169. By Modern Statutes. — See note 5. (b) Bills and Botes Between Husband and Wife. — See notes 8, 9. 170. See note 1. (d) Instruments Payable or Indorsed to Wife. — See note 9. 171. See note 1. 174. (7) Executors and Administrators. — ■ See notes 5, 6. 161. 1. Stamp Innocently Omitted. — Ebert v. Gitt, 95 Md. 186 (under the Act of 1898). 2. Burden of Proof. — Ebert v. Gitt, 95 Md. 186; Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488. 3. Instruments Admissible Without Stamps Where Omission Innocent. — Pierpont v. John- son, 104 111. App. 27; Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488 (under U. S. Int. Rev. Act of 1898). 162. 3. See Ebert v. Gitt, 95 Md. 186. 6. See Ebert v. Gitt, 95 Md. 186. 10. Nichols, etc., Co. v. Hardman, 62 Mo. App. IS3- 163. 4. Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720. 6. Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, %6 Am. St. Rep. 720. 6. Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720 ; Atwood v. Lester, 20 R. I. 660 ; Navasota First Nat. Bank v. McGinty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. S39- 7. Subsequent Insanity does not invalidate a note which is valid in other respects. Atwood v. Lester, 20 R. I. 660. 164. 1. Milligan v. Pollard, 112 Ala. 465; Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720. 2. Note for Necessaries. — Milligan v. Pollard, T12 Ala. 465 ; Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720. Burden of Proving Consideration on Plaintiff. — Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720. Recovery of Amount Used for Necessaries or Protection of Estate Allowed. — Navasota First Nat. Bank v. McGinty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 539. Note Void in Hands of Payee Without Notice. — Milligan v. Pollard, 112 Ala. 465. 3. Recovery Limited to Consideration Shown. — Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720. 4. Lunatic's Paper Voidable Only. — See also School Dist. v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St Rep. 576. 165. 2. Strickland v. Parlin, etc., Co., 118 Ga. 213. Drunkenness at Time of Execution. — Where one enters into a binding contract to give cer- tain promissory notes for named amounts, and subsequently gives them, fraud in procuring him to sign the notes, or drunkenness at the time of their execution, is no defense, when the notes amount to no more than a compliance with his previous valid contract. Strickland u. Parlin. etc., Co., 118 Ga. 213. S. More v. Finger, 128 Cal. 313. 8. Infant's Contracts Voidable. — See also Des Moines Ins. Co. v. Mclntire, 99 Iowa 50 ; Waterman v. Waterman, (Supm. Ct^ App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 195; Wise v. Loeb, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 601. 166. 2. Infant's Bills and Notes Validated Ab Initio by Ratification. — Waterman v. Water- man, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 195. 167. 3. Infant Payee. — Yarwood v. Trusts, etc., Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 47. 4. Surety on Infant's Note is discharged by the disaffirmance of the contract and return of the property by the infant. Keokuk County State Bank v. Hall, 106 Iowa 540. 168. 3. Bills and Notes of Married Women Void. — Thompson v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93; Vliet v. Eastburn, 63 N. J. L. 452, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 168. 169. 5. Sater v. Hunt, 66 Mo. App. 527. 8. Instruments Between Husband and Wife. — National Bank of Republic v. Delano, 185 Mass. 424. 9. Note from Husband to Wife Valid, under Pa. Act of June 8, 1893. — Haun v. Trainer, 7 Pa. Dist. 235. 17©. 1. Title of Note Through Wife to Hus- band. — See also Wisdom v. Shanklin, 74 Mo. App. 428. 9. Married Woman's Paper Vests in Husband. — Vann v. Edwards, 128 N. Car. 425. 171. 1. See also Kempner v. Huddleston, 90 Tex. 182. 174. 5. Estate Not Bound by Executor's or Administrator's Note. — Hopson v. Johnson, no Ga. 283 ; Jenkins v. Phillips, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 389 ; Sutherland v. St. Lawrence County, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 38, re- 576 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 175-180 Authority to Issue Negotiable Paper 175. See notes i, 2. 176. (9) Partners — (b) Trading Partnerships Implied. — See note 3. Authority Limited by Agreement, — See note 5- 177. Bills and Notes Issued in Fraud of the Firm. — See notes I, 2, 3. Burden of Proof. — See note 4/ 178. Subsequent Holder — Burden of Proof. — See note I. (c) Nontrading Partnerships. — See note 2. The Burden of Proof. — See note 3. 179. (d) Form of Partnership Paper — Joint and Several Notes Signed by Partner in Firm Name. — See note 5. 180. Paper Signed by One Partner in His Own Name Name. — See note 4. - Where Partner's Name Is Firm versed 101 N. Y. App. Div. 299; Morehead Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. Car. 318. 174. 6. Executor or Administrator Bound Per- sonally. — Morehead Banking Co. v. Morehead, 122 N. Car. 318; Jenkins v. Phillips, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 389; Darling v. Powell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 240. 175. 1. Title to Paper of Decedent Passes to Bepresentative. — Harnish v. Miles, in 111. App. 105 ; Marshall v. Meyers, 96 Mo. App. 643. 2. Marshall v. Meyers, 96 Mo. App. 643. 176. 3. Implied Power of Partner in Trading Partnership — ■ United States. — Andrews v. Con- gar, 131 U. S. (Appendix) clxxxiii, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 90. Georgia. — Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126. Illinois. — Adams v. Long, 114 111. App. 277. Kentucky. — Fordville Banking Co. v. Thomp- son, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 251. Michigan. — ■ Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 289, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 176; Citizens' Commercial, etc., Bank v. Piatt, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 694, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 743. Ohio. — Union Nat. Bank v. Wickham, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 790, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 685. Texas. — Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Berrott, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 662. Virginia. — Pettyjohn v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. in. See also Ferguson v. Fairchild, 1 N; W. Ter. 329 ; Johnson v. Bonfield, (Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep, 697. Compare Lowry v. Tivy, 70 N. J. L. 457- Power Limited by Michigan Statute. — Citi- zens' Sav. Bank v. Vaughan, 115 Mich. 156. Burden of Proving Lack of Authority on De- fendant. — Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Berrott, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 662. Ratification by Firm. — Richards v. Jefferson, 20 Wash. 166. 6. Limitation of Partner's Authority Does Not Affect Innocent Taker. — Andrews v. Congar, 131 U. S. ' (Appendix) clxxxiii, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 90; Adams v. Long, 114 111. App. 277; Union Nat. Bank v. Wickham, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 7go, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 685. 177. 1. Paper in Partnership Name Pre- sumed Partnership Transaction. — Adams v. Long, 114 111. App. 277; Stevens V. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285 ; Union Nut, etc., Co. v. Doherty, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 247, affirmed (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 496; Loeb v. Mellinger, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 129, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 592, j Supp, E. of L.,-37 5,77 The Presumption Is Not Affected by the fact that the paper is payable to a member of the firm. Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285. 2. Persons Taking with Notice Cannot Becover. — -King v. Mecklenburg, 17 Colo. App. 312; Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126; Adams v. Long, 1 14 111. App. 277 ; Monongahela Valley Bank v. Weston, 172 N. Y. 259; Lucker v. Iba, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 566 ; Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Berrott, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 662 ; Mas- terson o. Mansfield, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 262. 3. Contra, as to Innocent Holder. — Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126; Reed v. Bacon, 175 Mass. 407; Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285; Elmira Second Nat. Bank v. Weston, 161 N. Y. 520, 76 Am. St. Rep. 283 ; Monongahela Valley Bank v. Weston, 172 N. Y. 259; Union Nat. Bank v. Wickham, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 790, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 685; Loeb v. Mellinger, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 129, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 592 ; Ft. Dear- born Nat. Bank v. Berrott, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 662. Compare Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Bach- enheimer, 5 Pa. Dist. 218; Lowry v. Tivy, 70 N. J. L. 457. The Fact that a Married Woman Is a Member of the Partnership does not alter the general rule. Loeb v. Mellinger, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 129, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 592. 4. King v. Mecklenburg, 17 Colo. App. 312; Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285. 178. 1. Burden of Proof as to Subsequent Holder. — Stevens v. McLachlan, 120 Mich. 285; Union Nut, etc., Co. v. Doherty, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 247, affirmed (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 496; Smith v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194; Union Nat. Bank v. Wickham, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 790, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 685. 2. Nontrading Firms. — Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126; Adams v. Long, 114 111. App. 277 ; Teed v. Parsons, 202 111. 460, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 178. Authority Given by Ga. Civ. Code, § 2643.— Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126. 3. Teed v. Parsons, 202 111. 460, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 178. 179. 5. Whether Individual Partner Who Signs Severally Is Bound. — Where promissory notes are signed by a firm as makers, a person who holds himself out to the payees as a mem- ber of such firm, though he may not be so in fact, is liable as a maker. Isbester v. Ray, 26 Can. Sup. Ct. 79. 180. 4. Monongahela Valley Bank y, Weston, 159 N, Y, «qi, 183-186 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. American Doctrine. 1 82. Notes Signed by Partners as Individuals. — See note 3. (f) Dissolution of Firm. — See note 7. 183. See notes 1, 2. (10) Corporations — (b) Validity, of Corporation Paper — See notes 4, 7. Reason of the American Authorities. — See note 9. 1 84. English Doctrine. — See note 2. (c) Paper Issued Ultra Vires — Total Want of Authority. — See note 5. When Power Exists, but Issue Is for Unauthorized Purpose. — See note 6. 185. See note 1. (d) Authority of Officers and Agents. — See notes 3, 4. (11) Municipal Corporations. — See note 6. 3. The Consideration — a. Necessity of Consideration. — See 186. note 1. 182. 3. Partners Indorsing Firm Note as In- dividuals Liable Individually. — Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Melqon, 183 Mass. 66, 97 Am. St. Rep. 416. 7. Brown v. Bamberger, 1 10 Ala. 342 ; Mer- rick v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 11 Ohio Dec. 293 ; Tarver v. Evansville Furniture Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 66. Notes Issued After Firm Dissolves — Necessity of Notice of Dissolution. — Monongahela Valley Bank v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 201. Note Binding in Absence of Notice of Dissolution. — Pyron v. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060. Notes Issued After Dissolution, but Antedated, may be enforced by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Elmira Second Nat. Bank v. Weston, 161 N. Y. 520, 76 Am. St. Rep. 283. 183. 1. Authority Specially Continued. — Brown v. Bamberger, no Ala. 342. 2. Ratification. — Brown v. Bamberger, no Ala. 342. Ratification Does Not Include Stipulations in Note of Which Partner Had No Knowledge. — Brown v. Bamberger, no Ala. 342. 4. Corporation Notes. — Grommes v. Sullivan, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 45; Reade v. Pacific Coast Home Supply Assoc, 40 Oregon 60 ; Midland Steel Co. w. Citizens' Nat. Bank, (Ind. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 290. 7. Corporation Indorsements. — Hiawatha Iron Co. v. John Strange Paper Co., 106 Wis. in. Indorsement by Bank Before Authority Given to Do Business. — Kellogg v. Douglas County Bank, 58 Kan. 43, 62 Am. St. Rep. 596. 9. Incident of Power to Borrow. — Grommes v. Sullivan, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 45. 184. 2. Grommes v. Sullivan, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 4s. 5. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law an indorsement by a corporation passes the prop- erty in the instrument, notwithstanding the cor- poration may from want of capacity incur no liability thereon. Oppenheim v. Simon Reigel Cigar Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 355- 6. Bona Fide Holder's Right as to Paper Issued Ultra Vires. — Grommes v. Sullivan, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 45 ; M. V. Monarch Co. v. Har- dinsburg Bank, 103 Ky. 276 ; American Trust, etc., Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129; Hiawatha Iron Co. v. John Strange Paper Co., 106 Wis. in. See also Dexter Sav. Bank v. Friend, 90 578 Fed. Rep. 703 ; Willard v. Crook, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 237; Union Bank v. Eureka Woolen Mfg. Co., 33 Nova Scotia 302. 185. 1. One Who Knows that Paper Is Ultra Vires. — Thompson v. West, 59 Neb. 677. See also Solomon Solar Salt Co. v. Barber, 58 Kan. 419. 3. Persons Must Know Officer's General Au- thority. — Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 140, 86 Am. St. Rep. 183. 4. See Standard Cement Co. v. Windham Nat. Bank, 71 Conn. 668; Jones u. Stoddart, 8 Idaho 210 ; Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399 ; American Trust, etc., Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129. See also Imperial Bank v. Farmer's Trading Co., 13 Manitoba 412. 6. Power of Municipal Corporations. — Grommes v. Sullivan, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 45. Power to Issue Nonnegotiable Notes. — Rich- mond, etc., Land, etc., Co. v. West Point, 94 Va. 668. 186. 1. A Consideration for a Bill or Note Necessary — Alabama. — Oldacre v. Stuart, 122 Ala. 405. California. — Hardison v. Davis, 131 Cal. 635. Colorado. — Currier v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 6. Georgia. — Russell v. Smith, 97 Ga. 287. Illinois. — Vehon v. Vehon, 70 111. App. 40. Indiana. — Shirk v. Neible, 156 Ind. 66, 83 Am. St. Rep. 150; Mader v. Cool, 14 Ind. App. 299, 56 Am. St. Rep. 304. Iowa. — Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Hansmann, 114 Iowa 49. Kansas. — Bowling v. Floyd, 5 Kan. App. 879, 48 Pac. Rep. 875. Kentucky. — Boblett v. Barlow, 83 S. W. Rep. 145. 26 Ky. L. Rep. 1076. Michigan. — Graham v. Alexander, 123 Mich. 168 ; Nowack v. Lehmann, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 992. Minnesota. — Wildermann v. Donnelly, 86 Minn. 184. Missouri. — Anderson v. Stapel, 80 Mo. App. "5- Nebraska. — Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51, 73 Am. St. Rep. 491. New lersey. — Vliet v. Eastburn, 63 N. J. L. 450. New York. — Addison v. Enoch, 48 N. Y. App. Div. in, affirmed 168 N. Y. 658; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Hawn, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 640; Harvey v. Ayres, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 37 Misc. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 186 180. Consideration for Signing or Indorsing — After Negotiation. — See note 2. Before Negotiation. — See note 3. b. Presumption of Consideration. — See note 4. Negotiable Bills and Notes. — See note 5. (N. Y.) 164 ; Tyler v. Jaeger, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 84. Pennsylvania. — Baker v. Nipple, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 659- Vermont. — Montpelier Seminary v. Smith, 69 Vt. 382. Wisconsin. — Remington v. Detroit Dental Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307. Wyoming. — Swinney v. Edwards, 8 Wyo. 54, 80 Am. St. Rep. 916. Canada. — Banque Provinciale v. Arnoldi, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 624. Consideration for Indorsement. — The consid- eration expressed in the note will support the contract of indorsement, and it need express none other than the consideration which the note upon its face implies to have passed be- tween the original parties. Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162. Consideration Essential to Support Agreement for Extension. — Norris v. Graham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 575. Renewal Note. — Where the original note was given for an adequate consideration, no new or additional consideration is necessary to give validity to the renewal note. Lockner v. Hol- land, (County Ct.) 81 N. Y. Supp. 730. 1§6. 2. Effect of Signing or Indorsing after Negotiation. — Gieseker v. Vollmer, 88 Mo. App. 462; Tucker u. Gentry, 93 Mo. App. 655; Brown v. James, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 105 ; Monti- cello Bank v. Dooly, 113 Wis. 590. Consideration Independent of That Passing Be- tween Original Parties Essential. — Adams v. Huggins, 78 Mo. App. 219. 3. Effect of Signing or Indorsing Before Nego- tiation. — Duncanson v. Kirby, 90 111. App. 15; Hill v. Coombs, 93 Mo. App. 264 ; Tucker v. Gentry, 93 Mo. App. 655 ; Cordes v. Lindeman, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 53, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 882; Monticello Bank v. Dooly, 113 Wis. 590. 4. Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399; Blanshan v. Russell, 32 N. Y. App. Div, 103, affirmed 161 N. Y. 629; Monticello Bank v. Dooly, 113 Wis. 590; Kramer v. Kramer, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 176. 5. Negotiable Notes Import a Consideration — Alabama.- — Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310; Brown v. Johnston, 135 Ala. 608. California. — Younglove v. Cunningham, (Cal. 1896) 43 Pac. Rep. 755- Colorado. — Reed v. Pueblo First Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. 380; Currier v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 6; St. Joe, etc., Consol Min. Co. v. Aspen First Nat. Bank, 10 Colo. App. 339; Gambrill v. Brown Hotel Co., 11 Colo. App. 529- District of Columbia'. — Towles v. Tanner, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 530. Illinois. — Martin v. Martin, 202 111. 386, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 186 ; Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Ward, 113 111. App. 327 ; Board v. O'Donovan, 82 111. App. 163; Perry State Bank v. Elledge, 109 111. App. 179. Indiana. — Spurgeon v. Swain, 13 Ind. App. 188; Woodworth v, Veitch, 29 Ind, App. 589. Iowa. — Shaulis v. Buxton, 115 Iowa 425; Luke v. Koenen, 120 Iowa 103. Kansas. — Wright v. McKitrick, 2 Kan. App, 508. Kentucky. — Flowers v. Flowers, (Ky. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 1071 ; Hey v. Harding, (Ky. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 33; Kiesewetter v. Kress, (Ky. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 1065 I Power v. Ham- brick, (Ky. 1903) 74 S, W. Rep. 6S0 ; Beatty- ville Bank v. Roberts, 78 S. W. Rep. 901, 25 Ky. Rep. 1796; Cox v. Cox, 79 S. W. Rep. 220, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1934; Carman v. Carrico, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 216 ; Day u. Long, 80 S. W. Rep. 774, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 123. Maryland. — Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14. Michigan. — Young v. Shepard, 124 Mich. 552; Taylor v. Taylor, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 832, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 711; Union Trust Co. v. Morgans, (Mich. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 568, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 186. . Missouri. — Cox v. Sloan, 138 Mo. 430; Wood v. Flanery, 89 Mo. App. 632 ; Lowrey v. Dan- forth, 95 Mo. App. 441 ; Tapley v. Herman, 95 Mo. App. 537 ; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305 ; Hugumin v. Hinds, 97 Mo. App. 346. Montana. — Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249. New York. — Riverside Bank v. Woodhaven Junction Land Co., 34 N. Y. App. Div. 359 ; Bringman v. Von Glahn, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 537 (under Negotiable Instruments Law) ; Mc- Leod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 558, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 131 ; Moak v. Stevens, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 147; Durland v. Durland, 153 N. Y. 67 ; Benedict v. Kress, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 65 ; Hickok 0. Bunting, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 167; Harris v. Buchanan, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 403- North Dakota. — Peckham v. Van Bergen, 10 N. Dak. 43. Ohio. — Dalrymple v. Wyker, 60 Ohio St. 108; Eagle Ins. Co. v. Blymyer, 10 Ohio Dec. 417, 8 Ohio N. P. 275. Oklahoma. — Berry v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221. Oregon. — Kenny v. Walker, 29 Oregon 41; Sears v. Daly, 43 Oregon 346. Pennsylvania. — Messmore v. Morrison, 172 Pa. St. 300; Danner v. Hess, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 182. West Virginia. — Cheuvront v. Bee, 44 W. Va. 103. Canada. — McGregor v. McKenzie, 30 Nova Scotia 214 ; Larraway v. Harvey, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 97. Note under Seal — Consideration Presumed, — Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. Car. 193. Consideration for Extension of Note Presumed.— Corbett v. Clough, 8 S. Dak. 176. Consideration Imported from Use of Words " for Value Received." — Beatty v. Western College, 177 111. 280, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242. Indorsement by Payee — Consideration Pre- sumed. — Scribner v. Hanke, 116 Cal. 613. Joint Notes. — Chambers v. McLean, 24 Pa, Super. Ct. 567, 579 187-188 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. lST. Nonnegotiable Bills. — See note I. Nonnegotiable Notes. — See note 2. 188. c. Sufficiency of Consideration. See notes i, 2, 3. Joint Consideration. — Pearl v. Cortwright, 81 Miss. 300. Indorsement of Bill Imports Consideration, — Iselin v. Chemical Nat. Bank, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 437. Consideration Specified. — In Kentucky, where it appears from the face of the note that it was given for a specific consideration, there can be no recovery unless it appears from the evidence that it was given for the consideration stated. Smith v. Doherty, 109 Ky. 616. 187. 1. Order on Special Fund Does Not Im- port Consideration, even though it is accepted. Conroy v. Ferree, 68 Minn. 325. 2. Nonnegotiable Note Imports Consideration under Missouri Rev. Stat., 1899, g 894. — Lowrey v. Danforth, 95 Mo. App. 441. Nonnegotiable Notes Held Not to Import Con- sideration. — Deyo v. Thompson, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 9 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). Compare Bradt v. Krank, 164 N. Y. 515, 79 Am. St. .Rep. 662. Under Vermont Neg. Inst. Law, §§ 1, 8, a non- negotiable instrument does not import a consid- eration. National Sav. Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568. 188. 1. General Statement as to Sufficiency of Consideration — Alabama. — Alabama Nat. Bank v, Halsey, 109 Ala. 196 ; McCollum v. Edmonds, 109 Ala. 322; Booth v. Dexter Steam Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369. California. — Placer County Bank v. Free- man, 126 Cal. 90; Baldwin v. Hart, 136 Cal. 222 ; Muller v. Swanton, 140 Cal. 249. Colorado. — Reed v. Pueblo First Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. 380. Connecticut. — New Haven Mfg. Co. u. New Haven Pulp, etc., Co., 76 Conn. 127. Georgia. — Russell v. Smith, 97 Ga. 287. Illinois. — Hart v. Strong, 183 111. 349; Wall v. Stapleton, 177 111. 357; Miller v. Western College, 71 111. App. 587, 'affirmed 177 111. 280, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242 ; Harris v. Harris, 80 111. App. 310, affirmed 180 111. 157; Schoepfer v. Tommack, 97 111. App. 562. Indiana. — Woodworth v. Veitch, 29 Ind. App. 589. Iowa. — Riegel v. Ormsby, in Iowa 10. Kansas. — Claflin Bank v. Rowlinson, 2 Kan. App. 82 ; Wright v. McKitrick, 2 Kan. App. 508 ; Bowling v. Floyd, 5 Kan. App. 879, 48 Pac. Rep. 875. Kentucky. — Flowers v. Flowers, (Ky. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 1071 ; Citizens' Bank v. Millet, 103 Ky. 1, 82 Am. St. Rep. 546; Deering v. Veal, 78 S. W. Rep. 886, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1809; Day v. Long, 80 S. W. Rep. 774, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 123 ; Akers v. Phillips, (Ky. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 790 ; Congleton v. Garrard, (Ky. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 791. Maine. — Mathias v. Kirsch, 87 Me. 523 ; Waterville Trust Co. v. Libby, 98 Me. 241. Maryland. — Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. Massachusetts,- — Wooley v. Cobb, 165 Mass. jjq.3; Nashua §av, B,ank V. gayl^s, 184 Mass. m 520, 100 Am. St. Rep. 573 ; Equitable Marine Ins. Co. v. Adams, 173 Mass. 436. Minnesota. — Cooper v. Hayward, 67 Minn. 92; St. Cloud First Nat. Bank v. Lang, (Minn. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 700. Mississippi. — Hooker v. Mcintosh, 76 Miss. 693. Missouri. — Brown v. Croy, 74 Mo. App. 462 ; Madison County Bank v. Graham, 74 Mo. App. 251; Adams v. Huggins, 78 Mo. App. 219; Provines v. Wilder, 87 Mo. App. 162; School Dist. v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576 ; St. Louis Third Nat. Bank v. Reichert, 101 Mo. App. 242. Nebraska. — Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51, 73 Am. St. Rep. 491. New York. — Slade v. Montgomery, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 343; Brown v. Spohr, 180 N. Y. 201 ; Fitch v. Fraser, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 119; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Shire, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 401, affirmed 179 N. Y. 587; Matter of Flagg, (Surrogate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 401; McLeod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 558, affirmed 49 N. Y. App. Div. 131 ; Gansevoort Bank v. Altshul, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 6; General Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 510, affirmed 161 N. Y. 656. See also Water- man v. Waterman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 195; Warshawsky v. Grand Theatre Co., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 522. North Carolina. — Johnson v. Rodeger, 119 N. Car. 446. Ohio. — Dalrymple v. Wyker, 60 Ohio St. 108. Pennsylvania. — Fink v. Farmers' Bank, 178 Pa. St. 154, 56 Am. St. Rep. 746. South Carolina. — Brown v. Chandler, 50 S. Car. 385. Canada. — MacArthur v. MacDowall, 1 N W. Ter. 345. Absence of Advantage or Detriment — Considera- tion Insufficient. — Turle v. Sargent, 63 Minn. 2ii, 56 Am. St. Rep. 475. The Transfer of a Right of Occupancy of Real Property, the title to which is in another, is a sufficient consideration. Tye v. Chickasha Town Co., 2 Indian Ter. 113. Release of Judgment Against Maker. — Blythe v. Cordingly, (Colo. App. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 495. The Relinquishment by a Married Woman of Dower and homestead rights in her husband's land is a sufficient consideration for the execu- tion to her of a note and mortgage representing a portion of the price for which such land was sold. Gruver v. Walkup, 55 Neb. 544. Release of Dower Right Sufficient Consideration. — Southern L. & T. Co. v. Benbow, 135 N. Car. 303- A Note Given in Consideration of Marriage, based upon an agreement entered into after the engagement, is supported by sufficient considera- tion. Kramer v. Kramer, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 176. Rescission of Contract Sufficient Consideration. — McLeod v. Hunter, (Supm. Ct. Tr T ) 29 Misc (N, Y) 558., <«ffn?t 6. , Usury. — See note 8. 191. Illegal Liquor Dealing. — See note 2. Moral Obligation to Fay Pre-existing Legal Obligation Sufficient Consideration. — Cadiz Fourth Nat. Bank v. Craig, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 185. Moral Consideration Alone Insufficient. — Hart v. Strong, 183 111. 349. Sufficiency of Moral Obligation under S. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 3531. — -Rankin v. Matthiesen, 10 S. Dak. 628.' 189. 8. See also Bedard v. Chaput, 15 Que- bec Super. Ct. 572. 10. Natural Love and Affection. — Kline's Es- tate, 9 Pa. Dist. 386 ; Shugart a. Shugart, 1 1 1 Tenn. 179, 102 Am. St. Rep. 777, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 189. Existence of Marriage Engagement Not Sufficient Consideration. — Blanshan v. Russell, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 103, affirmed 161 N. Y. 629. 11. Inadequacy Does Not Invalidate the Con- sideration. — Yarwood v. Trusts, etc., Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 47 ; Matter of Flagg, (Surro- gate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 401; Helvie v. Mc- Kain, 32 Ind. App. 507. Knowledge of Inadequacy as Waiver, — One who gives a note with full knowledge of facts which would relieve him from liability for a portion of the debt represented in such note, cannot, in defense of an action thereon, subse- quently set up those facts. Atlantic Consol. Bottling Co. v. Hutchinson, 109 Ga. 550. 12. Inadequacy of Consideration Admissible to Show Fraud. — Shirk v. Neible, 156 Ind. 66, 83 Am. St. Rep. 150; Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 585 ; Macpherson v. McLean, 34 N. Bruns. 361. 13. Effect of Illegal Considerations — United States. — Atlas Nat. Bank v. Holm, (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 489. Alabama. — Wads worth v. Dun nam, 117 Ala. 661 ; Meyer-Marx Co. v. Ensley, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 639- Georgia. — Benson v. Dublin Warehouse Co., 99 Ga. 303. Maryland. — Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14. Michigan. — Heffron v. Daly, 133 Mich. 613. North Dakota. — Mooney v. Williams, 9 N. Dak. 329. Texas. — Reed v. Brewer, (Tex. Civ. App." 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 99; Columbia Carriage Co. v. Hatch, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 120. ' Canada. — Club Canadien v. Jacotel, 16 Que- bec Super. Ct. 312. Illegality of Consideration an Affirmative De- fense. — Stanton v. Strong, 94 111. App. 486. Note for Costs Exacted by County Officers, without authority of law, as condition of pris- oner's release, is for an illegal consideration and void. Horner v. Simpson, 10 Kan. App. 582, 63 Pac. Rep. 604. Validity Not Affected by Illegal Assignment of Collateral. — Bowery Bank v. Gerety, 153 N. Y. 411. 190. 1. Notes Executed for a Gaming Con- sideration Are Invalid. — Wirt v. Stubblefield, 1 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 283 ; Birdsall v. Wheeler, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 625, affirmed 173 N. Y. 590; Ash v. Clark, 32 Wash. 390. Note Given in Repayment of Money Contributed to Illegal Organization Valid. — Roth v. Holmes, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 699. 2. Futures as a Consideration. — Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Jansen, (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 572 ; Benson v. Dublin Warehouse Co., 99 Ga. 303 ; Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476 ; Aske- gaard v. Dalen, (Minn. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 503. Compare Northern Nat. Bank v. Arnold, 187 Pa. St. 356- 3. Wagers at Common Law Not Illegal. — Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, 11 N. Dak. 10, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693. 4. Wagers — Statutory Illegality. — Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Neb. 553 ; Mobley v. Porter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 655. 5. Notes for Money Lent for Gambling. — Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md, 14; Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, n N. Dak. 10, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693. See also Club Canadien v. Jacotel, 16 Quebec Super. Ct. 312. 6. See also Long v. Jones, 69 111. App. 615. 8. Usury as an Illegal Consideration. — Smith v. Mohr, 64 Mo. App. 39 ; Jennings v. Kosmak, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 300. See also Hamilton v. Fowler, (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. Rep. 18; Hudson v. Equitable Mortg. Co., 100 Ga. 83. Usury Preceding the Inception of the Note does not affect it. Thames L. & T. Co. v. Hage- meyer, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 533. Unauthorized Act of Payee's Agent in Exact- ing Usurious Consideration Invalidated Note. — Stephens v. Olson, 62 Minn. 295. 191. 2. Illegal Sales of Liquor. — Oakes v. Merrifield, 93 Me: 297. See also Wadsworth v. Dunnam, 117 Ala. 661; Wing v. Ford, 89 Me. 140. Compare McWhorter v. Bluthenthal, 136 Ala. 568. Under the Maine Statute it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove that the note was given for liquor sold in violation of the statute or for liquor purchased outside of the state with the intention to sell it, or some part of it, in violation of the statute. Wing v. Martel, 95 Me. 535. Note for Liquor Enforceable by Bona Fide 583 191-192 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 191. (o) Considerations Against Public Policy. — See notes 3, 4, O. 192. See note 1. . , c (2) Illegality Rendering Instrument Absolutely Void. — bee note 2. Holder in Due Course. — Sheary v. O'Brien, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 121. 191. 3. Compounding Felonies. — U. S. Fidel- ity, etc., Co. v. Charles, 131 Ala. 658; Jones v. Dannenberg Co., 112 Ga. 426; Rosenbaura v. Levitt, 109 Iowa 292 (under Iowa Code, § 4889) ; Malone v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 71 Mo. App. 1; Mexico First Nat. Bank v. Gregg, 74 Mo. App. 639 ; Davis v. Smith, 68 N. H. 253 ; Peckham v. Van Bergen, 10 N. Dak. 43. See also Shaulis v. Buxton, 109 Iowa 355; Leggatt v. Brown, 30 Ont. 225, affirming 29 Ont. 530. Belease from Imprisonment as Consideration. — Release from imprisonment in default of pay- ment of a fine is a good consideration for a note to secure payment of the fine and costs. Proc- tor v. Parker, 12 Manitoba 528. Compounding Misdemeanors.— Jones v. Dannen- berg Co., 112 Ga. 426. Threats of Prosecution. — Beath v. Chapoton, 115 Mich. 506, 69 Am. St. Rep. 589. Note Given by Father for Support of Bastard. — Where a woman has sued out a warrant against a man, charging him with being the father of her bastard child, they may settle the case by his paying her money or giving his promissory note. If such note be given, there is sufficient consideration, both moral and legal, to authorize a recovery thereon. Jones v. Peterson, 117 Ga. 58. Note Given for Consideration Against Public Policy Void. — Hubbard v. Freiberger, 133 Mich. 139- Same — Wager on Election. — Specht v. Bein- dorf, 56 Neb. 553. Same — Note Given to Secure Election of Cor- porate Officer. — Dickson v. Kittson, 75 Minn. 168, 74 Am. St. Rep. 447. A Note Given to a Broker Trading Without a License in violation of a valid ordinance is un- enforceable. Douthart v. Congdon, 197 111. 356. Note Given Merchant Who Has Not Paid Privilege Tax. — A note given in payment of an account contracted with a merchant during a year when he has not paid the taxes required by statute cannot be enforced. Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391. A Note Given an Unlicensed Physician for med- ical services is not void in the hands of a bona fide purchaser, although the practicing of medi- cine without a license is prohibited by statute. Citizens' State Bank u. Nore, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 160. Note Not Illegal Because Given for Goods Sold by Peddler Trading Without License. — Banks McCosker, 82 Md. 518, 51 Am. St. Rep. 478. 4. Repayment of Money Embezzled or Stolen, — See Turle v. Sargent, 63 Minn.' 211, 56 Am. St. Rep. 475. Compare Largent u. Beard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 90. A Note Given for the Restitution of Embezzled Funds, and not for the suppression of a prosecu- tion for embezzlement, is valid. Powell v. Flanary, 109 Ky. 342. 6. Withdrawal of Opposition to Insolvent's Discharge. — Fishery. Genser, 15 Quebec Super. Ct. 605. Note Given in Consideration of Creditor's Agree- ment to Composition Void. — Budden v. Rochon, 13 Quebec Super. Ct. 322. It is otherwise where the note is in the hands of a bona fide holder without notice. Bellemare ■c. Gray, 16 Quebec Super. Ct. 581. 192. 1. For Similar Devices which have been held to render the note void as against public policy, see Hubbard v. Freiberger, 133 Mich. 139. See also Loudenback v. Lowry, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 422. 2. Notes Void by Statute — United States. — Lauter v. Jarvis-Conklin Mortg. Trust Co., (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 894; Hamilton v. Fowler, (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. Rep. 23, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 192. Alabama. — Kuhl v. M. Gaily Universal Press Co., 123 Ala. 452, 82 Am. St. Rep. 135- See also Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9. Colorado. — McMann v. Walker, 31 Colo. 261 ; Western Nat. Bank v. State Bank, 18 Colo. App. 128. See also Cooper v. Hunter, 8 Colo. App.' 101. District of Columbia. — Wirt v. Stubblefield, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 283. Georgia. — Jenkins v. Jones, 108 Ga. 556; Smith v. Wood, in Ga. 221. Illinois. — Long v. Jones, 69 111. App. 615; Hopmeyer v. Frederick, 74 111. App. 301. Indiana. — Kniss v. Holbrook, 16 Ind. App. 229. See also Pinney v. Concordia First Nat Bank, 68 Kan. 223. Iowa. — See also Rosenbaum v. Levitt, 109 Iowa 292. Kentucky. — Bohon v. Brown, 101 Ky. 354, 72 Am. St. Rep. 420. Michigan. — Union Trust Co. v. Preston Nat. Bank, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 399, n De- troit Leg. N. 61. Mississippi. — Montjoy v. Delta Bank, 76 Miss. 402. Missouri. — Swing v. Clarksville Cider, etc., Co., 77 Mo. App. 391 ; Morris v. White, 83 Mo. App. 194. Nebraska. — Larson v. Pender First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. 303. New York. — See McWhirter v. Longstreet, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 831. Pennsylvania. — Northern Nat. Bank v. Ar- nold, 187 Pa. St. 356. Tennessee. — Bradshaw v. Van Valkenburg, 97 Tenn. 316. Texas. — Marshall Nat. Bank v. O'Neal, n Tex. Civ. App. 640 ; Roach v. Davis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 1070. Wyoming. — ■ Swinney v. Edwards, 8 Wyo. 54, 80 Am. St. Rep. 916. Assignee of Illegal Note Cannot Recover Original Consideration. — Webb v. Tarver, 2 Tenn. Ch. App. 366. In Nebraska a statute will not be construed so as to make a negotiable instrument void in the hands of a bona fide purchaser, unless the act so specifically declares. Citizens' State Bank v. Nore, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 160. Usury — Gaming. — Angier v. Smith, 101 Ga. 844; Atlanta Sav. Bank v. Spencer, 107 Ga. 629; 584 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 19&-19& 193. (3) Partial Illegality. — See note 3. 193. (4) Immoral Considerations. — See note 1. (5) Fraudulent Considerations. — See note 3. Fraud upon Creditors. — See note 4. /. Want or Failure of Consideration — (i) Total Want (a) Generally. — ' See note 5. Maine Mile-Track Assoc, v. Hammond, 127 Mich. 690 ; Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Neb. 553 ; Faison v. Grandy, 128 N. Car. 438, 83 Am. St. Rep. 693 ; Smith v. Mason, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 188; Morris v. White, 83 Mo. App. 194. The Negotiable Instruments Law does not ren- der invalid a note given in payment of money due in a gaming transaction where the note is held by a bona fide purchaser. Wirt v. Stubble- field, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 283. Subsequent Promise of Payment. — A note pay- able to the winner in a gaming transaction is void, and no suit can be maintained thereon, even by an innocent holder for value, unless the maker has induced the purchase thereof by promising payment. In such case the maker is estopped, as against such innocent holder, from setting up the gaming consideration for such note. Hurlburt v. Straub, 54 W. Va. 303. A Verbal Promise to Pay a Note Void for Illegality is without consideration and not en- forceable. Swinney v. Edwards, 8 Wyo. 54, go Am. St. Rep. 916. Usurious Note Void as to Interest. — Miles v. Kelley, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 147. Violation of Liquor Laws. — Notes given for in- toxicating liquors are enforceable in the hands of bona fide purchasers, under Me. Rev. Stat., c. 27, § 56. Oakes v. Merrifield, 93 Me. 297 ; Wing v. Ford, 89 Me. 140. Note for Race Horse. — Biegler v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 164 111. 197. The Nebraska Statute providing that contracts made by foreign corporations which have failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for doing business in the state shall be void as to such corporations and their " assigns," does not render void, in the hands of a holder in due course, a note given to a foreign corporation which has failed to comply with the statute, and by it transferred to such holder. National Bank of Commerce v. Pick, (N. Dak. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 63. Notes of Foreign Corporation Which Has Not Complied with Local Statutes Void. — Massillon First Nat. Bank v. Coughron, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 1 1 12. Failure of Foreign Corporation to Comply with Statutory Provisions does not invalidate note in hands of bona fide purchaser. McMann v. Walker, 31 Colo. 261. 1 92. 3. Effect of Partial Illegality. — Wads- worth v. Dunnam, 117 Ala. 661; Douthart v. Congdon, 197 111. 356, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 192 ; Chaulisi'. Buxton, 109 Iowa 355 ; Mobley v. Porter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 655 ; Padget v. O'Con- nor, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 870. 193. 1. Future Illicit Cohabitation. — Rob- erts v. Million, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 220. Note Given for Immoral Consideration Not En- forceable by Bona Fide Holder. — Jenkins v. Jones, 108 Ga. 556. 585. 3. Fraud Invalidates a Bill or Note. — Mc- Tighe v. McKee, 70 Ark. 293 ; Clay County Bank v. Keith, 85 Mo. App. 409. See also Chamberlin v. Keeler, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 236. Estoppel to Plead Fraud as Defense. — New England F. Ins. Co. 0. Haynes, 71 Vt. 307. 4. Maker Estopped to Plead that Note Was Given to Defraud His Creditors. — Collins v. Collins, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 596. Note Given by Insolvent to Preferred Creditor Void under Canada Statute. — Clay v. Gill, 12 Manitoba 465. The Note Will Be Enforced Between the Parties where the enforcement will not have the effect of upholding the fraudulent agreement. Har- crow v. Gardiner, 69 Ark. 6. 5. Entire Want of Consideration — Alabama. — McCollum v. Edmonds, 109 Ala. 322 ; Old- acre v. Stuart, 122 Ala. 405. Arkansas. — Hencke v. Standiford, 66 Ark. 535- Colorado. — Currier v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 6. Georgia. — Carithers v. Levy, 1 1 1 Ga. 740 ; Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566. Illinois. — Meguiar v. Rainey, 70 111. App. 447 ; Taft v. Myerscough, 92 111. App. 560, reversed 197 111. 600; Morgan v. Bean, 100 111. App. 114. Iowa. — Storm Lake First Nat. Bank v. Felt, 100 Iowa 680; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577. Kansas. — Hale v. Aldaffer, 5 Kan. App. 40. Kentucky. — Flowers v. Flowers, (Ky. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 1071. Maine. — Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 585. Michigan. — Brown v. Smedley, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 856, 857, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 960. Minnesota. — Turle v. Sargent, 63 Minn. 211, 56 Am. St. Rep. 475 ; Wildermann v. Donnelly, 86 Minn. 184. Mississippi. — Robertshaw v. Britton, (Miss. 1898) 24 So. Rep. 307. Missouri. — Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brady, 165 Mo. 197; Bales v. Heer, 91 Mo. App. 426. Nebraska. — Fellers v. Penrod, 57 Neb. 463. New lersey. — Mueller v. Buch, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1092. New York. — Block v. Stevens, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 246 ; Manhattan Brass Co. v. Gil- man, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 690 ; American Boiler Co. v. Foutham, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 50 N. Y. Supp. 351, reversed 34 N. Y. App. Div. 294 ; Chapman v. Ogden, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 355, affirmed 165 N. Y. 642. North Dakota. — Andrews v. Schmidt, 10 N. Dak. 1. O Wo. — Clark v. Clark, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 752, 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. 103. Oklahoma. — Hagan v. Bigler, 5 Okla. 575; Frick v. Reynolds, 6 Okla. 638. Texas. — Mayes v. McElroy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 344. Washington. — Huntington v. Lombard, 22 Wash. 202. 194-195 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 194. 195. (b) GiftB of Bills and Notes — Koto or Bill of the Donor. — See notes I, 2. Note or Bill of the Donee or of a Third Person. — See note 3. Delivery. — See note 5. See note 1. (2) Partial Want. — See note 2. Invalidity of One of Several Considerations. — See note 3. (3) Total Failure. — See note 4. Worthlessness of Consideration. — Clayton v. Cavender, 1 Marv. (Del.) 191 ; Leonard v. Draper, 187 Mass. 536. A Note Given in Payment of an Open Account is not invalidated on the ground of failure of consideration by reason of the account being barred by the statute of limitations at the time suit is brought on the note. Carter v. Bolin, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 283. Waiver of Failure of Consideration. — Edison Gen. Electric Co. -j. Blount, 96 Ga. 272; Hogan v. Brown, 1 12 Ga. 662. Benewal Note. — Where the connection be- tween the first note, for which valid considera- tion was received, and the notes given in re- newal thereof is clearly established, want of consideration is not a valid defense to an action by the payee against the maker on a re- newal note in which the latter acknowledges to have received value. Ross v. Western L. & T. Co., 11 Quebec K. B. 292. Patent Bight Notes. — The proof that the maker of a note given in consideration of the patent right received nothing from the patent is not sufficient to render the note invalid on the ground of failure of consideration. Pad- dock v. Coates, (County Ct.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 3°5- 194. 1. Donor's Own Note or Bill Not a Valid Gift — Alabama. — Thompson v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93. Illinois. — Beatty v. Western College, 177 111. 280, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242. Louisiana. - — See Rabasse's Succession, 49 La. Ann. 1405. Maryland. — Selby v. Case, 87 Md. 459. Massachusetts. ■ — Mason v. Gardner, 186 Mass. 515. Michigan. — Graham v. Alexander, 123 Mich. 168. Missouri. — School Dist. u. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576. Nebraska. — Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51, 73 Am. St. Rep. 491. New York. — Deyo v. Thompson, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 9 ; Mandan First . Nat. Bank v. Gil- mer, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 614; Matter of Flagg, (Surrogate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 401 ; Strevell v. Jones, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 627. Pennsylvania. — Kline's Estate, 9 Pa. Dist. 386. Tennessee. — Shugart v. Shugart, 1 1 1 Tenn. 179, 102 Am. St. Rep. 777. Texas. — Hatchett v. Hatchett, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 33- Vermont. ■ — Montpelier Seminary v. Smith, 69 Vt. 382. Gift of N011 negotiable Note Invalid. — Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. Si, 73 Am. St. Rep. 491. 2. Donor's Own Note a Mere Promise. — Thomp- son v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93 ; Beatty v. Western College, 177 111. 290, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242; Safford v. Graves, 56 111. App. 499 ; School Dist. v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576 ; Matter of Flagg, (Surrogate Ct.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 401; Shugart v. Shugart, m Tenn. 179, 102 Am. St. Rep. 777; Hatchett v. Hatchett, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 33 ; Ricketts v. Scothorn, 57 Neb. 51, 73 Am. St. Rep. 491. Estoppel to Plead Want of Consideration. — Beatty v. Western College, 177 111. 280, 69 Am. St. Rep. 242. 3, Note or Bill of Any Other Person Hay Be a Valid Gift. — Edwards v. Wagner, 121 Cal. 376; Shugart v. Shugart, m Tenn. 179, 102 Am. St. Rep. 777. 6. Delivery Is Necessary. — Edwards v. Wag- ner, 121 Cal. 376. 195. 1. Delivery May Be Made to a Third Person. — School Dist. v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576. 2. Taft v. Myerscough, 92 111. App. 560, re- versed 197 111. 600 ; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577; Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 585; Brown v. Roberts, 90 Minn. 316, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 195 ; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305. Note Not Void Where Consideration Partially Fictitious, in Absence of Fraud. — Phelps, etc., Co. v. Hopkinson, 61 111. App. 400. Want of Consideration as to Unpaid Balance. — Where a note is given for a certain sum, a part of which is for a good consideration and the balance is without consideration, and after- wards the amount that is for a legal considera- tion is paid and indorsed on the note, the note then being without consideration as to the un- paid balance, no recovery can be had upon it. Littlefield v. Perkins, (Me. 1905) 60 Atl. Rep. 707. 3. Amount of Recovery When One or More of Several Considerations Is Valid. — Jones v. Har- rell, no Ga. 373. 4. Total Failure of Consideration as a Defense — United States. — Hatzel v. Moore, 125 Fed. Rep. 828. Arkansas. — Gale v. Harp, 64 Ark. 462. California. — See also Russ Lumber, etc., Co. v. Muscupiabe Land, etc., Co., 120 Cal. 521, 6s Am. St. Rep. 186. Illinois. — Taft v. Myerscough, 92 111. App. 560, reversed 197 111. 600. Indiana. — Kenney v. Wells, 23 Ind. App. 490. Iowa. — Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577- Kansas. — Hale v. Aldaffer, 5 Kan. App. 40. Maine. — Furber v. Fogler, 97 Me. 385; Hathorn v. Wheelwright, 97 Me. 351. Michigan. — Perkins v. Brown, 115 Mich. 41 ; McBryan v. Universal Elevator Co., 130 Mich, in, 97 Am. St. Rep. 453. Minnesota. — Conroy v. Logue, 87 Minn. 289. New York. — Ewing v. Wightman, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 416, affirmed 167 N. Y. 107; Richard- 586 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 195-196 195. (4) Partial Failure. — See note 5. 196. See note 1. (5) When Want or Failure May Be Shown — (a) Immediate Parties. — See note 2. Original Parties. — See note 3. son, etc., Co. v. Gudewill, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 818. North Carolina. — Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. Car. 721. Pennsylvania. — Wertz v. Klinger, 25 Pa. Super. Ct 523. Texas. — Brown v. Viscaya, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 309 ; Saldumbehere v. Hadlock, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 653. . The Nonperformance of an Agreement forming the consideration of a note is not a failure of consideration unless the agreement be re- scinded. Monahan v. Lovece. 70 111. App. 69. Where the Maker Is Indemnified against Loss the failure of the consideration is not a de- fense. Myers v. Hettinger, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 370. A Failure Formally to Discontinue a Suit is not a defense to an action on a note the con- sideration for which is the discontinuance of the suit, where the suit has been abandoned. West v. Banigan, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 328, affirmed 172 N. Y. 622. 195. 5. Partial Failure Is a Defense Pro Tanto — United States. — Williams v. Neely, (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 1. California. — Russ Lumber, etc., Co. v. Mus- cupiabe Land, etc., Co., 120 Cal. 521, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186. Colorado. — See also Brevoort v. Hughes, 10 Colo. App. 379. Georgia. — Otis v. Holmes, 109 Ga. 775. Illinois. — Taft v. Myerscough, 92 111. App. 560, reversed 197 111. 600. Indiana. — Mader v. Cool, 14 Ind. App. 299, 56 Am. St. Rep. 304. Iowa. — Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577- Maine. — Hathorn v. Wheelwright, 99 Me. 351, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 195. Minnesota. — Nichols, etc., Co. v. Soder- quist, 77 Minn. 509 ; Brown v. Roberts, 90 Minn. 314, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 195. Missouri. — Robinson v. Powers, 63 Mo. App. 290. North Carolina. — See Jones v. Rhea, 122 N. Car. 721. Oklahoma. — Hagan v. Bigler, 5 Okla. 575. Texas. — See Henry v. Sansom, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 122. Washington. — Bay View Brewing Co. v. Tecklenberg, 19 Wash. 471, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 195. Recovery Pro Tanto by Holder with Notice, under Delaware Sess. laws, 1897, c. 598, p. 706. — Journal Printing Co. v. Maxwell, 1 Penn. (Del.) 5"- Waiver of Failure — Notice of Defects. — Means v. Subers, 115 Ga. 371- Partial Failure of Consideration a Defense Pro Tanto in Action Against One of the Makers of Joint and Several Note. — Nichols, etc., Co. v. Soderquist, 77 Minn. 509. Early Doctrine. — Danforth v. Crookshanks, 68 Mo. App. 311. Illinois Statute — Rev. Stat., c. 98, § IS. — Day v. Milligan, 72 111. App. 324; Redden v. Slimpert, 70 111. App. 460. Missouri Statute. — Proof of want or failure in part admissible. Danforth u. Crookshanks, 68 Mo. App. 311. Amount of Failure Must Be Definite. — Goldie, etc., Co. v. Harper, 31 Ont. 284. Incumbrance on Realty Paid by the Vendee. — See also Williams v. Neely, (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 1. 196. 1. Partial Failure Unliquidated. — American Nat. Bank v. Watkins, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 545 ; Hathorn v. Wheelwright, 99 Me. 351, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 195. 2. Between Immediate Parties — Alabama. — Parker v. Bond, 121 Ala. 529. Georgia. ■ — Carithers v. Levy, in Ga. 740 ; Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566; Butler v. McCall, 119 Ga. 503. Iowa. — Storm Lake First Nat. Bank v. Felt, 100 Iowa 680; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577 ; Farmers Sav. Bank v. Hansmann, 114 Iowa 49. Maryland. — Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14. Massachusetts. — White v. Dodge, 187 Mass. 449- Michigan. — Kelley v. Guy, 116 Mich. 43; Brown v. Smedley, (Mich. 1904) g8 N. W. Rep. 856, 857, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 960. Minnesota. — Brown v. Roberts, 90 Minn. 314; Wildermann v. Donnelly, 86 Minn. 184. Mississippi. — Robertshaw v. Britton, (Miss. 1898) 24 So. Rep. 307. Missouri. — Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brady, 165 Mo. 197 ; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305 ; Catterlin v. Lusk, 98 Mo. App. 182. Nebraska. — Fellers v. Penrod, 57 Neb. 463. New Jersey. — Mueller v. Buch, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1092. New York. — American Boiler Co. v. Fou- tham, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 50 N. Y. Supp. 351, reversed 34 N. Y. App. Div. 2g4 ; Chapman v. Ogden, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 355, affirmed 165 N. Y. 642 ; Batterman v. Butchner, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 213. North Dakota. — Andrews v. Schmidt, 10 N. Dak. 1. Pennsylvania. — Hubbard v. French, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 218; Danner v. Hess, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 182 ; Moore v. Phillips, 13 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 173. Texas. — Mayes v. McElroy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 344. Wisconsin. — Remington v. Detroit Dental Mfg. Co., 101 Wis. 307 ; Cawker v. Seamans, 92 Wis. 328. Maker and Receiver of Payee are Immediate Parties. — Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brady, 165 Mo. 197. 3. Original Parties — Alabama. — Parker t>. Bond, 121 Ala. 529. 587 10r-198 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 197. Indorsee and Indorser. — See note I. 198. (b) Eemote Parties. — See notes I, 2. Consideration Given by Intermediate Party. See notes 3, 4. Georgia. — Carithers v. Levy, in Ga. 740. Iowa. — Storm Lake First Nat. Bank v. Felt, 100 Iowa 680 ; Farmers Sav. Bank 1/. Hans- mann, 114 Iowa 49. Minnesota. — Conroy v. Logue, 87 Minn. 289; Wildermann v. Donnelly, 86 Minn. 184. Missouri. — Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305. New Jersey. — Mueller v. Buch, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1092. New York. — American Boiler Co. v. Fou- tham, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 50 N. Y. Supp. 35L reversed 34 N. Y. App. Div. 294 ; Batterman v. Butchner, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 213. North Dakota. — Andrews v. Schmidt, 10 N. Dak. 1. Pennsylvania. — Danner v. Hess, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 182. Texas. — Mayes v. McElroy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 344. Wisconsin. — Cawker v. Seamans, 92 Wis. 328. Between Payee and Maker. — Lewis v. Clay, 67 L. J. Q. B. 224, 77 L. T. N. S. 653, 46 W. R. 319; Parker v. Bond, 121 Ala. 529; Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566; White v. Dodge, 187 Mass. 449 ; Brown v. Smedley, (Mich. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 856, 857, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 960 ; Robertshaw v. Britton, (Miss. 1898) 24 So. Rep. 307 ; Mueller v. Buch, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1092 ; Batterman v. Butchner, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 213; Russell v. Rood, 72 Vt. 238. Between Payee's Personal Representative and Maker. — Aldrich v. Whitaker, 70 N. H. 627. Note Made Payable to Third PerBon. — The rule applies where the note has been made payable to a third person at the request of the one from whom the consideration passed. Bradshaw v. Miners' Bank, (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. Rep. 902. 197. 1. Between Indorsee and Immediate Indorser. — Peabody v. Munson, 211 111. 327, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 196, 197; Sloan v. Gibbes, 56 S. Car. 480, 76 Am. St. Rep. 559. 198. 1. The Consideration May Not Be In- quired into Between Remote Parties — Alabama. — Bunzel v. Maas, 116 Ala. 68; Breitling v. Marx, 123 Ala. 222; Bomar v. Rosser, 123 Ala. 641.; King v. Peoples Bank, 127 Ala. 266. Arkansas. — Reynolds v. Roth, 61 Ark. 317. California. — McDonald v. Randall, 139 Cal. 246 ; Muller v. Swanton, 140 Cal. 249. Colorado. — Statton v. Stone, 15 Colo. App. 237; Beach v. Bennett, 16 Colo. App. 459; Par- sons v. Parsons, 17 Colo. App. 154. Georgia. — Post v. Abbeville, etc., R. Co., 99 Ga. 232 ; Montgomery v. Hunt, 99 Ga. 499 ; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334; Parr v. Erickson, 115 Ga. 873; Johnson County Sav. Bank v. Wootten, 118 Ga. 927; Keith v. Fork, 105 Ga. 511; Graham v. Campbell, 105 Ga. 839; Morris v. Georgia Loan, etc., Co., 109 Ga. 12. Illinois. — Mahon v. Gaither, 59 111. App. 583 ; Redden v. Slimpert, 70 111. App. 460 ; Rockford Nat. Bank v. Young Men's Christian Assoc. Gymnasium Co., 78 111. App. 180, af- firmed 179 111. 599, 70 Am. St. Rep. 135; Gil- more v. German Sav. Bank, 89 111. App. 442. Indiana. — People's State Bank v. Ruxer, 31 Ind. App. 245; Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, (Ind. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 290. Iowa. — Graff v. Adams, 100 Iowa 481 ; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Farrell, no Iowa 577. Kansas. — Overhoff v. Trusdell, 5 Kan. App. 881, 49 Pac. Rep. 331. Kentucky. — Beattyville Bank v. Roberts, 78 S. W. Rep. 901, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1796. Massachusetts. — Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577; White • affirmed 202 111. 214. Missouri. — See Dunlap v. Kelly, 105 Mo. App. 1. Oregon. — Spreckels ■ 8>2y; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. LiMenthal, 40 1 N. Y. App. Div. 609 ; Petrie v. Miller, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 17, affirmed 173 N. Y. 596' (tender Negotiable Instruments Law)' ; Hyimain v. American Electric Forge Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N Y.) 381. North Dakota. — Dunham v. Peterson, 5 N. Dak. 414, 57 Am. St. Rep. 556. South Dakota. — Iowa Nat. Bank v. Sherman, 17 S. Dak. 396, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 285. Texas. — Raatz v. Gordon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 651. Virginia. — Payne v. Zell, 98 Va. 294. Wisconsin. — Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 848. 286. 1. Parting with Value. — St. Thomas First Nat. Bank v. Flath, 10 N. Dak. 281. 5*87. 3. Sill Or Note of Debtor — Alabama. — Anniston L. & T. Co. v. Stickney, ro8 Ala. 146; Elyton Co. v. Hood, 121 Ala. 373. See also Steiner v. Jeffries, 118 Ala. 573. California. — Savings Bank v. Central Market Co., 122 Cal. 28. Illinois. — U'niioni Nat. Bank v. Post, 93 111. App. 339i affirmed 192 111. 3185 ;, Bradford v. Neill, etc., Constr. Co., 76 111. App. -488:;, Ross v. Skinner,, 107 111. Apjh 5.79.. See' also' Tyler v. Hyde, 80 111. Appi 123. Indiana. — Sponhaur v. Malloy, 21 Ind. App. 287. Kansas. — Bradbury v.- Van Pelt,, 4 Kan. App. 57J- Nebraska. — ■ Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burns t , 61 Neb. 793. New Jersey. — State v. Giese, 59' N.. J. L. 130. See also Asbury Park First Nat. Bank v. White, 60 N. J. Eq. 487. New York. — Schmidt v. Livingston, (Supm. Ct.. Appi T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.> 554- Pennsylvania. — See also Mechanics' Nat. Bank. v. Kielkopf, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 128. West Virginia. — Parkersburg First Nat. Bank v. Handleys,. 48 W. Va. 690: Wisconsin. — W^l° w ' River Lumber Co. Vw Luger Furniture Co., 102 Wis. 636. See also Milwaukee First Nat. Bank v. Finck,, 100 Wis. 446. Bale in Indiana, — Rhodes v. Webb-Jameson Co., 19 Ind. App. 195. Renewal Note as Payment.. — Kendall v. Equi- table L.. Assur. Soe., 171 Mass. 5681. 288. 1., Discharge of. Debt of Another. — RussseM v . Smith, 97 Ga. 287 ; Harris v. Harris, 180 111. 157. Necessity of Consideration. — Sponhaur v. Mal- loy, 21 Ind. App. 287. 2. Nominal Payment Does Not Constitute Value. — Robertson v. McKibbira, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 658 ;; Spuing Brook Chemi- cal Co. v. Dunn, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 130; Sutherland u.. Mead, 8o> N. Y. App. Div. 103,, in which case it was stated that the rule exist- ing before the Negotiable Instruments Law was not changed by section 5,1 of that law which provides that an antecedent or pre-existing debt constitutes value. See also Andrews v. Hess, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 1194 ; Kelly if. Theiss, (Supm 1 . Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 31.1. 289. 1. Collateral for Contemporaneously Con- tracted DBbt, — Thompson v. Maddux, 117 Ala. 468; Murphy v. Gumaer, 12 Colo. App. 472; Niles First Nat. Bank v. Sbue, 119 Mich. 560; Jones v. Wiesen, 50 Neb. 243 ; Connecticut Trust, etc., C®. v. Fletcher, 6r Neb. 166 ; White- side v. Chattanooga First Nat. Bank, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 1 108, citing 4 Am. AxNd Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 300-302; New- man v. Aultman, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 198, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. op Law (2d ed.) 289. See also' Mahoney v. Bar- ber, 67 Minn. 308 ; Blue Springs Min. Co. o. Mcllvien, 97 Tenn. 225,. 290. 1. Indemnity as Consideration for Trans- fer — Measure of Damage — Burden of Proof, — Wright v- Hardie, 88 Tex. 65,3. 606 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 29© 292 290. • (5) Collateral far Pre-existing Debt — (t») History of Confiiet - trine Was Subsequently Repudiated. — See note 4. 292. See note 2. This Doo- 390. 4. Collateral Security — Pre-existing Debt a Valuable Consideration — United States. — Doe v. Northwestern Coal, etc., Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 62; D'Esterre v. Brooklyn, go Fed. Rep. 593 ; Hamilton v. Fowler, (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. Rep. 18. California. — Russ Lumber, etc., Co. v. Mus- cupiabe Land, etc., Co., 120 Cal. 621, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186. Colorado. — Murphy v. Gumaer, 12 Colo. App. 472. Georgia. — Kaiser v. U. S. National Bank, 99 Ga. 258; Johnston v. Gulledge, 115 Ga. 981. Illinois. — Bemis v. Horner, 62 111. App. 38, affirmed 165 111. 347. Indiana. — Warren v. Syfers, 23 Ind. App. 167; National Exch. Bank v. Berry, 21 Ind. App. 261. Indian Territory. — Barton v. Ferguson, 1 Indian Ter. 263. Kansas. — Birket v. Elward, 68 Kan. 295. See also Claflin Bank v. Rowlinson, 2 Kan. App. 82 ; Fox v. Harrison Nat. Bank, 6 Kan. App. 682. Maryland Buchanan v. Mechanics' Loan, etc., Inst., 84 Md. 430 ; Black v. Westminster First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399. Missouri. — It seems to be the rule in Mis- souri that where the note is given as collateral and no new consideration is given, the holder takes it subject to all equities existing between the parties. Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29, 59 Am. St. Rep. 489; Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 411; Allen v. Harris, 79 Mo. App. 490 ; Dymock v. Midland Nat. Bank, 67 Mo. App. 97. Montana. — ■ Yellowstone Nat. Bank v. Gag- non, 19 Mont. 402, 61 Am. St. Rep. 520. Nebraska. — Connecticut Trust, etc., Co. v. Trumbo, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 216; Lash- mett v. Prall, (Neb. 1902) 96 N. W. Rep. 152. New York. — Brewster v. Shrader, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 480; Petrie v. Miller, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 17, affirmed 173 N. Y. 596 (under Negotiable Instruments Law) ; Milius v. Kauffmann, 104 N. Y. App. Div. 442 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). Com- pare Sutherland v. Mead, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 103, in which case it is stated that the rule formerly existing in New York is not changed by the Negotiable Instruments Law. North Carolina. — See Brooks v. Sullivan, 129 N. Car. 190 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). Rhode Island. — Randall v. Rhode Island Lumber Co., 20 R. I. 625. Tennessee. — See Charleston Bank v. Johns- ton, 105 Tenn. 521 (under Negotiable Instru- ments Law). Texas. — Alexander v. Lebanon Bank, 1 9 Tex. Civ. App. 620; Watzlavzick v. Oppen- heimer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 85s ; Bruce v. Weatherford First Nat. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 295. Compare Van Burkleo v. Southwestern Mfg. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 39 S. W. Rep. 1085; Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Sulphur Springs First Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 573. Virginia. — Payne v. Zell, 98 Va. 294 (under Negotiable Instruments Law, § 25). West Virginia. — Mercantile Bank v. Boggs, 48 W. Va. 293, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 290-293. Canada. — Belanger v. Robert, 21 Quebec Super. Ct. 518. Where the Note Has Been Fraudulently Diverted, the mere fact that it was given as collateral security for an antecedent indebtedness is not sufficient, without more, to constitute the holder a bona fide holder for value. Sutherland v. Mead, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 103. Pledgee Bona Fide Holder to Amount of Debt. — Yellowstone Nat. Bank v. Gagnon, 19 Mont. 402, 61 Am. St. Rep. 520. 292. 2. Pre-existing Debt Held Not a Valu- able Consideration — Alabama. — Thompson v. Maddux, 117 Ala. 468. In Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52, there is a dictum apparently to the contrary effect, the court citing in support thereof Louisville Banking Co. v. Howard, 123 Ala. 380, 82 Am. St. Rep. 126. This latter case, however, is merely to the effect that the trans- feree is a bona fide holder where an extension of time is granted in consideration of the trans- fer, and it would seem that this statute still adheres to the minority doctrine. Arkansas. — Bank of Commerce v. Wright, 63 Ark. 604. Iowa. — Noteboom v. Watkins, 103 Iowa 580 J Keokuk County State Bank v. Hall, 106 Iowa 540. Michigan. — Maynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571- New York. — Central Trust Co. v. West India Imp. Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 147, reversed 169 N. Y. 314. But see the cases cited supra, 290. 4. North Carolina. — Brooks v. Sullivan, lzg N. Car. 190 (the rule is now otherwise by statute, Laws 1899, t. 733, §§ 25-27). See also the cases cited supra, 290. 4. ■ North Dakota. — Porter v. Andrus, 10 N. Dak. 558. Tennessee. — Atlanta Guano Co. v. Hunt, 100 Tenn. 92, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 290-293 ; Merchants, etc., Bank v. Penland, 101 Tenn. 445; Alabama Marble, etc., Co. v. Chattanooga Marble, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1004; Newman v. Aultman, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep, 198, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 293. But see the late case cited supra, 290. 4. Wisconsin. — Burnham v. Merchants Exch. Bank, 92 Wis. 277. Effect of Delivery of Unindorsed Note as Col- lateral, — Chadron Bank v. Anderson, 6 Wyo>. Si8. Not Subject to Subsequent Equities. — The rule in Tennessee would seem to be that negotiable paper transferred as collateral for an existing debt is subject to all equities then existing, btlt not to defenses and equities arising after the transfer. Trigg v. Saxton, (Tenn. Ch, <896) 37 S. W. Rep. 567. 607 394-300 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 294. Arguments Pro and Con — On the One Hand. — See note I . 396. (c) Eight of Holder Against Subsequent Attaching Creditor of Payee — Where Some Hew and Valuable Consideration Passes at the Time the Collateral Is Given. — See note I. 297. Debt of Third Person, — See note I. (6) Nominal Payment and Collateral Security Distinguished. — See note 2. 298 note i. 299 See note i. 300. (7) Crediting Depositor with Proceeds of Discounted Paper. — See (8) Accommodation Paper — But Where Accommodation Paper Is Diverted. — c. Bona Fides — (3) Circumstances of Suspicion. — See note 3. Eule of American Courts. — See note 3. 294. 1. Reason of Doctrine that Giving as Collateral Constitutes Value. — Bryan v. Harr, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 190. 296. 1. Hew Consideration at Time of Trans- fer — Alabama. — Louisville Banking Co. v. Howard, 123 Ala. 380, 82 Am. St. Rep. 126. Arkansas. — Bank of Commerce v. Wright, 63 Ark. 604. Colorado. — Murphy v. Gumaer, 12 Colo. App. 472. , Iowa. — See also Noteboom v. Watkins, 103 Iowa 580. Michigan. — Maynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571- Missouri. — Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29, 59 Am. St. Rep. 489; Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 430. New York. — Central Trust Co. v. West India Imp. Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 147, reversed 169 N. Y. 314; Kelly v . Theiss, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 311 ; McCammon v. Shantz, 3. St. 91; Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Bachenheimer, 5 Pa. Dist. 218. Texas. — Ford v. Oliphant, (Tex. Civ. App. i8qs) 32 S. W. Rep. 437. Fraud of a Syndicate does not relieve a mem- ber from liability to a bona fide holder for the pltw's stow to fte syMfete pw«Tty Trades- %%% men's Nat. Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 63 Am. St. Rep. 830. Holder with Notice. — Roberts v. Tomlinson, 9 Kan. App. 85 ; Ganz v. Weisenberger, 66 Mo. App. no; Phillips v. Allen, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 531 ; Mayes v. McElroy, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 344. 326. 2. Beath v. Chapoton, 115 Mich. 506, 69 Am. St. Rep. 589. 327. 1. Misrepresentations as a Defense — England. — Lewis v. Clay, 67 L. J. Q. B. 224, 77 L. T. N. S. 653, 46 W. R. 319. Canada. — Alloway v. Hrabi, 14 Manitoba 627, per Perdue, J. ; Banque Jacques-Cartier v. Lalande, 20 Quebec Super. Ct. 43. Georgia. — See Hansford v. Freeman, 99 Ga. 376- Indiana. — Lindley v. Hofman, 22 Ind. App. 239, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 346 ; People's State Bank v. Ruxer, 3 1 Ind. App. 245 ; Home Nat. Bank v. Hill, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 1086, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 327. Michigan. — ■ Beard v. Hill, 131 Mich. 246. Minnesota. — See Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Holan, 63 Minn. 525. Nebraska. — ■ Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Gra- vatte, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 694. New York. — Hutkoff v. Moje, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 632. Texas. — Wootters v. Haden, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 755. Wisconsin. — Keller v. Ruppold, 115 Wis. 636, 95 Am. St. Rep. 974 ; Prentiss v. Strand, 116 Wis. 647. False Representations as to the Liability of the Indorser in the Eyes of the Law being merely an expression of opinion upon the question of law are not a defense. Court Valhalla, No. 16, etc., v. Olson, 14 Colo. App. 243. Fraud a Question of Fact. — Walton v. Mason, 109 Mich. 486. Sufficiency of Evidence. — Texas City Imp. Co. v. Pollard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 860. 2. Defendant Liable Whether Negligent or Not, — See Highsmith v. Martin, 99 Ga. 92 ; Tower v. Whip, 53 W. Va. 158. See also Lancaster County Nat. Bank v. Garber, 178 Pa. St. 91 ; Adams v. Ashman, 203 Pa. St. 536. 3. Holder May Recover Where Signer Negligent — Alabama. — See also Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9. Illinois. — Muhlke v. Hegerness, 56 111. App. 322; Yeomans v. Lane, 101 111. App. 228. Indiana. — Home Nat. Banks'. Hill, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 1086, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 327. See Lindley v. Hofman, 22 Ind. App. 237, §ee, a,}sq Pape v, Harlwig, 25 Ind, App, 333i 338-333 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 338. (3) What Amounts to Negligence — Instances — What Is Negligence Depends on Circumstances. — See note I . Failure to Bead or Have Bead. — See note 3. 339. Aged, Ignorant, and Illiterate Persons. — See notes I, 2. (4) Statutes. — See note 3. c Instruments Never Delivered — a contrary Bnie. — See 331. note 3. 333. Negligence of the Defendant. — See note I. d. Instruments Fraudulently Altered. — See note 2. Effect of Drawer's Negligence — Recovery Allowed. — See note 3- Kentucky. — Clark v. Tanner, ioo Ky. 275. New Hampshire. — Woodward v. Bixby, 68 N. H. 219. North Dakota. — Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 55i. Oregon. — Brown v. Feldwert, (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 414. Wisconsin. — Keller v. Schmidt, 104 Wis. 596. Negligence Not Superinduced by Fraud. — Martin v. Smith, 116 Ala. 639. Missouri — Fraud in Procurement Not a Defense Against Holder in Due Course. — Clark v. Por- ter, 90 Mo. App. 143 ; Brown v. Hoffelmeyer, 74 Mo. App. 385. 328. 1. Home Nat. Bank v. Hill, (Ind. I9°S) 74 N. E. Rep. 1086; Green v. Wilkie, 98 Iowa 74, 60 Am. St. Rep. 184; Woodward v. Bixby, 68 N. H. 219 ; Hutkoff v. Moje, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 632. Negligence a Question of Fact for Court Where Issue Is Tried Without Jury — Kingman v. Reine- mer, 58 111. App. 173, affirmed 166 111. 208. Negligence a Question of Fact under Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 2239. — Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Holan, 63 Minn. 525. 3. Failing to Bead or Have Bead — - Alabama. — Orr v. Sparkman, 120 Ala. 9. Georgia. — Boynton v. McDaniel, 97 Ga. 400; Highsmith v. Martin, 99 Ga. 92 ; Walton Guano Co. v. Copelan, 112 Ga. 319. Illinois. — Exchange Nat. Bank v. Plate, 69 111. App. 489; Yeomans v. Lane, 101 111. App. 228; Wilcox v. Tetherington, 103 111. App. 404. Indiana. — See Lindley v. Hofman, 22 Ind. App. 237. See also People's State Bank v. Ruxer, 31 Ind. App. 245. Missouri. — Catterlin v. Lusk, 98 Mo. App. 182. Oregon. — Brown v. Feldwert, (Oregon 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 414. Pennsylvania. — Manhattan Mercantile Co. v. Jones, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 452 ; Howie v. Lewis, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 232. Wisconsin. — New Bank v. Kleiner, 112 Wis. 287. Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Finding that Maker Understood Note. — Warnock v. Itawis, (Wash. 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 297. 329. 1. Infirm, Illiterate, and Ignorant Per- sons. — Gore v. Malsby, no Ga. 893 ; Muhlke v. Hegerness, 56 111. App. 322; Ray v. Baker, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 619; Home Nat. Bank v. Hill, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 1086; Green v. Wilkie, 98 Iowa 74, 60 Am. St. Rep. 184; Beard v. Hill, 131 Mich. 246; Chase v. Milroy, 16 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 43. " Misplaced Confidence " Not Essential Where Fraud Is Proven. — Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. pravatte, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W, Rep, 694. 624 2. Failure to Call on Bystanders. — Lindley v. Hofman, 22 Ind App. 237 ; Keller v. Schmidt, 104 Wis. 596. 3. Illinois Statute — Nature of the Fraud. — Metcalf v. Draper, 98 111. App. 399 ; Gehlbach v. Carlinville Nat. Bank, 83 111. App. 129; Gray v. Goode, 72 111. App. 504 ; Mann v. Mer- chants' L. & T. Co., 100 111. App. 224; Yeomans v. Lane, 101 111. App. 228. Person Signing Negligently Not Protected. — Stone v. Billings, 167 111. 170; Yeomans v. Lane, 10 1 111. App. 228; Wilcox v. Tethering- ton, 103 111. App. 404; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Plate, 69 111. App. 489. Payee Ignorant of the Fraud May Becover. — McCrea v. Murphy, 90 111. App. 434. Georgia Statute. — Jenkins v. Jones, 108 Ga. 556. Same — Nature of the Fraud. — Walters v. Palmer, no Ga. 776; Martina v. Muhlke, 186 111. 327. Minnesota Statute. — Determination of ques- tions of fraud and negligence for the jury, under Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, I 2239. O'Gara v. Hansing, 88 Minn. 401. 331. 3. Delivery Essential to Validity. — Sal-ley v. Terrill, 95 Me. 553, 85 Am. St. Rep. 433- 332. 1. Negligent Maker Liable. — Heavy v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 27 Utah 222, 10 1 Am. St. Rep. 966. See also Young v. Brewster, 62 Mo. App. 628. 2. By the Negotiable Instruments Law the rule has been changed, and when an instrument has been materially altered and is in the hands of a holder in due course, not a party to the altera- tion, he may enforce payment according to the original tenor of the note. Mutual Loan Assoc. v. Lesser, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 614; Massachu- setts Nat. Bank v. Snow, (Mass. 1905) 72 N. E. Rep. 959; Thorpe v. White, (Mass. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 592 ; Moskowitz v. Deutsch, (Suprh. Ct. App. T.) 46 Misc. (N. Y.) 603; Bryan v. Harr, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 190; Packard v. Windholz, (County Ct.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 347, affirmed 88 N. Y. App. Div. 365, 180 N. Y. 549. Rights of Innocent Holder, Not a Party to Alter- ation, Not Affected, under Md. Neg. Inst. Act, § 143. — Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136. Under the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act, where one signs the name of an alleged joint maker without his authority before the note comes into the hands of a holder for value, the holder may recover thereon, the alteration not being apparent and he being a holder in due course. Cunnington v. Peterson, 29 Ont. 346. 3. View that a Recovery May Be Had Because of Negligence — Alabama. — Holmes v. Ft Gaines Bank, 129 Ala, 493. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 333-339 333. Fart of the Instrument Easily Detached. — See note 2. Drawing Paper So as to Facilitate Alteration Held No Defense. — See note 3. 334. e. Forged Paper — Signatures Forged. — See note 1. f. DURESS — Between Immediate Parties. — See note 2. Between Bemote Parties. — See notes 3, 4. 335. g. Misappropriation and Breach of Trust — (i) Instruments Delivered Conditionally and Circulated Fraudulently. — See note 1. Colorado. — Statton v. Stone, 15 Colo. App. 237- Illinois. — Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am- St. Rep. 246 ; Weaver v. Leseure, 89 111. App. 628; Leseure v. Weaver, gg III. App. 375 ; Dewey v. Merritt, 106 111. App. 156. Iowa. — Derr v. Keaough, g6 Iowa 397. Kentucky. — Bank of Commerce v. Haldeman, 109 Ky. 222 j Hackett v. Louisville First Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 193. Nebraska. — Humphrey Hardware Co. v. Herrick, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 1016. North Dakota. — Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. Implied Authority of Holder to Insert Name Inadvertently Omitted. — Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577. Alteration by Filling Blank Invalidates Note in the hands of a bona fide holder, where the alteration is apparent. Alexander v. Buckwal- ter, 8 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 74, 17 Lane. L. Rev. 366. Insertion of Place of Payment When There Is No Blank Space a Material Alteration. — Wisenogle v. Powers, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 232, 1 Cleve. L. Rep. 141. See also Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130; Pope v. Branch County Sav. Bank, 23 Ind, App. 210. Blank Spaces Not Utilized. — Weidman v. Symes, 120 Mich. 657, 77 Am. St. Rep. 603; First State Sav. Bank v. Webster, 121 Mich. 149. Rule Confined to Negotiable Instruments. — Smith v. Holzhauer, 67 N. J. L. 206, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 332, 333- English Doctrine. — See Imperial Bank v. Ham- ilton Bank, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 360, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 332. 333. 2. Compare Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. Recovery Not Allowed in Absence of Negligence on the Maker's Part. — Rochford v. McGee, 16 S. Dak. 606, 102 Am. St. Rep. 719. Margin Torn Off. — Compare Seebold v. Tat- lie, 76 Minn. 131. 3. Herington Bank v. Wangerin, 65 Kan. 423. 334. 1. Illinois. — Beattie v. National Bank, 69 111. App. 632, affirmed 174 111. 571, 66 Am. St. Rep. 318; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Wagge- man, 87 I1L App. 171, affirmed 187 111. 227; Hovorka v. Hemmer, 108 III. App. 443. Kansas. — Stevens Point First Nat. Bank v. Martin, 56 Kan. 247. Missouri. — Chamberlain Banking House v. Noble, 85 Mo. App. 428. Nebraska. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bunts, 61 Neb. 793. New York. — Doty v. Dellinger, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 610. Compare Lennon v. Grauer, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 513, affirmed 159 N. Y. 433. Ohio. — Merrick v. Merchants Nat. Bank, ' 11 Ohio Dec. 293. I Supp. E. of L.— 40 625 Tennessee. — Furnish v. Burge, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 90. Vermont. — Terrill v. Tillison, 7s Vt. 193. Virginia, — Pettyjohn v. National Exch. Bank, 101 Va. rn. See also Commercial Bank v. Cabell, 96 Va. 552. Burden of Proof. — Brown v. Tonrtelotte, 24 Colo. 204. Admissions Estopping Plea of Forgery. — Lewis v. Hodapp, 14 Ind. App. nr, 56 Am. St. Rep. 295. Forgery of Subsequent Indorsement Not Defense to Action Against Prior Indorser. — Produce Exch. Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577. Ratification of Forged Signatures. — Barry v. Kirkland, (Ariz. 1898) 52 Pac. Rep. 771 ; Cen- tral Nat. Bank v. Copp, 184 Mass. 328; Dominion Bank v. Ewing, 7 Ont. L. Rep. 90. See also Corner Stone Bank v. Rhodes, (Indian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 739. 2. Duress Is a Defense Between Immediate Parties. — Brueggestradt v. Lttdwig, 184 111. 24; Lee v. Ryder, 1 Kan. App. 293; Peckham v. Van Bergen, 10 N. Dak. 43 ; Behl v. Schuett, 104 Wis. 76; Nebraska Mut. Bond Assoc, v. Klee, (Neb. igo3) 97 N. W. Rep. 476. See also Kennedy v. Roberts, 105 Iowa S21 ; Delta County Bank v. McGranahan, (Wash. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. fg6. Compare Largent v. Beard, (Tex. Civ. App. r8gg) 53 S. W. Rep. go ; Delta County Bank v. McGrana- han, (Wash. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 796. Duress a Question of Fact. — Overstreetir. Don- lap, 56 Itt, App. 486. What Constitutes Duress. — James v. Dalbey, 107 Iowa 463. 3. Between Remote Parties Duress Is Not a Defense. — Pate v. Allison, 114 Ga. 651; Wil- son v. Neu, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 502; Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis. 6, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 334; Keller v. Schmidt, 104 Wis. 596. 4. Shirk v. Neible, 156 Ind. 66, 83 Am. St. Rep. 150. See also Ganz v. Weisenberger, 66 Mo. App. no. 335. 1. Arkansas. — Craighead v. Farmers' Bldg., etc., Assoc, 6g Ark. 332. Connecticut. — McCormick v. Warren, 74 Conn. 234. Indiana. — Galvin v. Syfers, 22 Ind. App. 43. Iowa. — Dubuque First Nat. Bank v. Getz, 96 Iowa 1 39. Kansas. — Topeka Bank v. Nelson, 58" Kan. 815, 49 Pac. Rep. 155. Maine. — Salley v. Terrill, 95 Me. 553, 85 Am. St. Rep. 433. Missouri. — Walters v. Tielkemeyer, 72 Mo. App. 371. Montana. — American Exch. Nat. Baflfe v. Ulm, 21 Mont. 440. New York. — Utica City Nat. Bank v. Tall- man, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 480, affirmed' tji 335-339 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 335. Instrument Deposited as an Escrow. — See note 2. 336. Fraudulent Diversion by Agent. — See note I. Conditional Indorser or Surety. — See note 2. 337. (2) Instruments Delivered in Blank and Completed Fraudulently — Authority to Fill Blanks — In General. — See note I. Bona Fide Holder. — See notes 2, 3. 338. See note 1. Limitation of the Rule. — See note 2. Filling Interest Blank. — See notes 3, 4. Holder with Notice. — See note 5. 339. England. — See note 1. 6. Holder of Renewal Bill or Note — In General. — See note 5. N. Y. 642 ; Metropolitan Bank v. Engel, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 273 ; Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532. North Dakota. — Porter v. Andrus, 10 N. Dak. 558. Texas. — Mulberger v. Morgan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 34 S. W. Rep. 148. Virginia. — Greever v. Graham Bank, 99 Va. 547- Wisconsin. — Mendenhall v. Ulrich, (Minri. 1905) 101 N. W. Rep. 1057. One Who Is Not a Bona Fide Holder Cannot Recover. — Burke v. White, 61 Mo. App. 521 ; Commercial Bank v. Smith, 34 Nova Scotia 426. Recovery by Maker Against Fraudulent Trans- ferrer. — The wrongful transfer of a negotiable note to a bona fide purchaser, thereby cutting off the maker's valid defense, gives rise to a cause of action for the damages resulting therefrom. Detwiler v. Bainbridge Grocery Co., 119 Ga. 981. 335. 2. Burden of Proof on Holder. — Jami- son v. McFarland, 10 S. Dak. 574. 336. 1. Schneider v. Lebanon Dairy, etc., Co., 73 111. App. 612; Salley v. Terrill, 95 Me. 553, 85 Am. St. Rep. 433 ; Mendenhall v. Ul- ' rich, (Minn. 1905) 101 N. W. Rep. 1057. See also Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532. 2. Notes Delivered in Violation of Authority. — Craighead v. Farmers' Bldg., etc., Assoc, 69 Ark. 332. Surety Not Liable Where Holder Has Notice. — — Deering v. Veal, 78 S. W. Rep. 886, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1809. Failure to Obtain Other Signatures. — Craig- head v. Farmers' Bldg., etc., Assoc, 69 Ark. 332 ; Deering v. Veal, 78 S. W. Rep. 886, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1809. 337. 1. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52 ; Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 337 ; Leseure v. Weaver, 99 111. App. 375 ; Young v. Baker, 29 Ind. App. 130; Boston Steel, etc., Co. v. Steuer, 183 Mass. 140, g7 Am. St. Rep. 426 (under Negotiable Instruments Law) ; Lewiston Sav. Bank v. Lawson, 87 Mo. App. 42; Mechanics' Bank v. Chardavoyne, 69 N. J. L. 256, 101 Am. St. Rep. 701 ; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551. 2. Exceeding Authority No Defense Against a Bona Fide Holder. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52 ; Leseure v. Weaver, 99 111. App. 375 ; Boston Steel, etc., Co. v. Steuer, 183 Mass. 140, 97 Am. St. Rep. 426; Mechan- 626 ics' Bank v. Chardavoyne, 69 N. J. L. 256, 101 Am. St. Rep. 701 ; Porter v. Hardy, 10 N. Dak. 551; Howie v. Lewis, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 232; Gillespie v. Rogers, 184 Pa." St. 488 ; Burton v. Goffin, 5 British Columbia 454. Insertion of Provision for Attorney's Fees in Blank Space Does Not Affect Bona Fide Holder. — Leseure i>. Weaver, 99 111. App. 375. Surety Signing Blank Note Liable Though Prin- cipal Exceeds His Authority. — Roberson v. Blev- ins, 57 Kan. 50. "Under the English Bills of Exchange Act of 1882, § 20, subs. 2, one signing a blank note and delivering it to an agent with authority to fill it out for a certain sum payable to such agent, is not liable where the agent fills the note for an amount in excess of that author- ized, making it payable to another payee, as the delivery of such note by the agent to the payee does not constitute a negotiation of the note within the meaning of the statute. Herd- man v. Wheeler, (1902) 1 K. B. 361. 3. Amount in Excess of Agreement. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 337 ; Howie v. Lewis, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 232; Gillespie v. Rogers, 184 Pa. St. 488. Marginal Figures Altered. — Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246. 338. 1. British Columbia Land, etc., Agericy v. Ellis, 6 British Columbia 82. 2. Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. 3. Commercial Bank v. Maguire, 89 Minn. 394- 4. Leseure v. Weaver, 99 111. App. 375 ; Bur- ton v. Goffin, s British Columbia 454; British Columbia Land, etc., Agency v. Ellis, 6 British Columbia 82; Humphrey Hardware Co. v. Her- rick, (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 1016. 6. Commercial Bank v. Maguire, 89 Minn. 394- .339. 1. Watkin v. Lamb, 85 L. T. N. S. 483. 5. Renewal Bill or Note — Generally. — Dalton First Nat. Bank v. Black, 108 Ga. 538 ; Oakes v. Merrifield, 93 Me. 297; Cristy v. Campau, 107 Mich. 172; Stevens v. MacLachlan, 120 Mich. 28s; Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Pennock, 55 Neb. 188; Adams v. Ashman, 203 Pa. St. 536; Seay v. Fennell, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 261. See also Oldacre v. Stuart, 122 Ala. 405; Albuquerque First Nat. Bank v. Lesser, 9 N. Mex. 604. " Renewal " Defined. — The term " renewal," as applied to promissory notes, means the re- establishment of the particular contract for Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 340-342 340. 341. 349. Action - Partial Illegality of Original Instrument. — See note I. Renewal for Valid Part of Consideration, — See note 2. Purgation of Illegality — Usurious Contracts. — See note 3. Change of Securities Between Original Parties. — See note I . Usurious Paper in Renewal of Paper Hot Usurious. — See note 2. Renewal with Forged Paper. — See note I. 7. Holder's Right of Action and Proof Thereof — a. Rights of ■ (1) Who May Bring Action — In General. — See notes 2, 3. another period of time. Lowry Nat. Bank v. Fickett, 122 Ga. 489. Original Invalidity Affects Renewal. — Ala- bama Nat. Bank v. Halsey, 109 Ala. 196; Kuhl v. M. Gaily Universal Press Co., 123 Ala. 452, 82 Am. St. Rep. 135 ; Turle v. Sargent, 63 Minn. 211, 56 Am. St. Rep. 475; Decorah First Nat. Bank v . Holan, 63 Minn. 525 ; Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391 ; Brown v. James, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 105 ; St. Pierre v. L'Ecuyer, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 495. A Holder for Value takes the note subject to the defenses. Oakes v. Merrifield, 93 Me. 297. A Renewal Note Given by One Who Has Been Released on the original instrument is without consideration. Farmers, etc., Bank v. Hawn, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 640. Waiver by Renewal After Knowledge of Fraud. — Dunn o. Columbia Nat. Bank, 204 Pa. St. 53. Failure to Surrender Original Note Does Not Affect Validity. — Murphy v. Carey, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 106. 340. 1. Partial Illegality. — Kuhl v. M. Gaily Universal Press Co., 123 Ala. 452, 82 Am. St. Rep. 13s ; Oakes v. Merrifield, 93 Me. 297 ; Rapid City First Nat. Bank v. McCarthy, (S. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 14. 2. Failure of Consideration for Renewal. — While the defense of " failure of considera- tion " is not available to defeat a recovery by the plaintiff in an action upon a promissory note which was in renewal of one previously given for the purchase of personal property, when it plainly appears that this defense is based solely upon alleged defects in the prop- erty of which the maker of the note sued on had full knowledge before executing the same, a plea in effect alleging that the renewal note was given to the plaintiff in consideration of a promise by the latter to repair the defects, that this promise had not been performed, and that, in consequence of the breach thereof, the defendant had been damaged in an amount stated, was meritorious. Atlanta City St. R. Co. v. American Car Co., 103 Ga. 254. 3. How Usury May Be Purged. — McFarland y. State Bank, 7 Kan. App. 722. See also Lanier v. Union Mortg., etc., Co., 64 Ark. 39 ; Palmer v. Carpenter, 53 Neb. 394. 341. 1. Mere Change of Securities.— Flannery v. Three Forks Deposit Bank, (Ky. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 847. 2. Quint v. Hays City First Nat. Bank, 9 Kan. App. 474; Wilson v. Donaldson, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 897. 342. 1. Forged Paper in Renewal. — Traders Deposit Bank v. Day, 105 Ky. 219. 2. California. — Dyer v. Sebrell, 135 Cal.' 597 ; Ft. Collins First Nat. Bank- v. Hughes, (Cal. 1896) 46 Pac. Rep. 272. See also Scrib- ner v. Hanke, 116 Cal. 613. Connecticut. — New Haven Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Pulp, etc., Co., 76 Conn. 126. Georgia. — Daniel v. Royce, 96 Ga. 566 ; Mayer v. Thomas, 97 Ga. 772 ; Tyson u . Bray, 117 Ga. 689; Ray v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 926. Illinois. — Illinois Conference, etc., v. Plagge, 177 111. 431, 69 Am. St. Rep. 252; Dickinson v. Bull, 72 111. App. 75. Kansas. — Perry v. Wheeler, 63 Kan. 870; Greene v. McAuley, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 133 ; Manley v. Park, 68 Kan. 400, (Kan. 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 1 1 30; Linney v. Thompson, 3 Kan. App. 718. Minnesota. — Kelts v. Northwestern Live- Stock Ins. Co., 64 Minn. 390, 58 Am. St. Rep. 541; Ames, etc., Co. v. Smith, 65 Minn. 304; Cooper v. Hayward, 67 Minn. 92. Missouri. — Barber v. Stroub, (Mo. App. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 915. Nebraska. — Menzie v. Smith, 63 Neb. 666. New York. — Callahan v. Crow, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 346, affirmed 157 N. Y. 69s ; Carpenter v. Cummings, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 587 ; Snyder v. Gruniger, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 77 N. Y. Supp. 234. Oregon. — Overholt v. Dietz, 43 Oregon 194 ; Sturgis v. Baker, 43 Oregon 236. Rhode Island. — Hutchings v. Reinhalter, 23 R. I. 518. Texas. — Fant v. Wickes, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 394; Lewis v. Womack, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 894 ; Jones v. Butler, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 367 ; Schauer v. Beitel, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 145- Washington. — Riddell v. Prichard, 12 Wash. 601 ; Lodge v. Lewis, 32 Wash. 191. West Virginia. — Spencer Bank v. Simmons, 43 W. Va. 79. Action by Holder of Legal Title Requisite under Ala. Code 1896, § 28.— Piedmont Banks;. Smith, 119 Ala. 57. Action Maintainable by Assignee for Benefit of Creditors. — Forster v. New Albany Second Nat. Bank, 61 111. App. 272. Action May Be Brought by Either of Joint Holders. — Collyer v. Cook, 28 Ind. App. 272. Holder May Sue with Consent and for benefit of real owner. New England Trust Co. v. New York Belting, etc., Co., 166 Mass. 42. Rights of Holder under Tex. Rev. Stat., art. 313. — Schauer v. Beitel, 92 Tex. 601. Action by Agent. — An agent who purchases a note with his principal's money, and has it indorsed to himself, may maintain an action thereon in his own name. Routh v. Kostachek, (Okla. 190s) 81 Pac. Rep. 429. Pledgor and Pledgee — Action by Pledgee. — McDaniel v. Chinski, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 504 ; Mersick v. Alderman, 77 Conn. 634; Greene v. McAuley, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 133. 637 342 343 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 343. 343. note I. Note or Bill Payable to Bearer or Indorsed in Blank. — Note or Bill Specially Payable. — See note 5. (2) Against Whom Action May Be Brought See note 4. — At Common Law . — See By Statute. — See note 2. (3) When Right of Action Accrues — Bill or Note Payable on Demand. — See note 3. Joint Holders Not Partners Must AH Sue To- gether. — King v. King, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 547, dismissed 172 N. Y. 604. 342. 3. Dyer v. Sebrell, 135 Cal. 597; Mayer v. Thomas, 97 Ga. 772 ; Greene v. McAuley, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 133 ; Carpenter v. Cummings, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 587 ; Sturgis v. Baker, 43 Oregon 236 ; Hutchings v. Reinhalter, 23 R. I. 518; Lewis v. Womack, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 894; Jones v. Butler, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 367; Ray v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 926. 4. Vanarsdale v. Hax, (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. Rep. 878; Berney v. Steiner, 108 Ala. in, 54 Am. St. Rep. 144. Transferee for Purpose of Collection. — The holder of a note payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed in blank, may maintain an action on the note in his own name, though the title was transferred to him by delivery for the purpose of enabling him to collect the note for the benefit of another transferee. Meyer v. Foster, (Cal. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 402. 6. Pattillo v. Alexander, g6 Ga. 60. See also Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 372. 343. 1. Separate Actions Necessary. — Kim- mel v. Weil, 95 111. App. 15; State v. Hughes, 19 Ind. App. 266; Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 65 Am. St. Rep. 678; Wolf u. Hostetter, 182 Pa. St. 292; Willis v. Willis, 42 W. Va. 522; Mason v. Kilcourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 21. See also Harvard Pub. Co. v. Benja- min, 84 Md. 333, 57 Am. St. Rep. 402. 2. Statutes Providing for Joint Action — California. — Loustalot v. Calkins, 120 Cal. 688. Colorado. — See also Cooper v. German Nat. Bank, 9 Colo. 169; Byers v. Tritch, 12 Colo. App. 377- District of Columbia. — Young v. Warner, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 433. Georgia. — Saussy v. Weeks, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 809. Illinois. —*■ Mexican Asphalt Paving Co. v. Lowe, 73 111. App. 250 ; Kimmel v. Weil, 95 III. App. 15; Harrison v. National Bank, 108 111. App. 493, judgment affirmed 207 III. 630. Nebraska. — Palmer v. McFarlane, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 256. New Hampshire. — See also Benton v. Hop- kins, 68 N. H. 606. New Jersey. — Mason v. Kilcourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 21. North Carolina. — Washington First Nat. Bank v. Eureka Lumber Co., 123 N. Car. 24. Oklahoma. — Outcalt v. Collier, 8 Okla. 473. Rhode Island. — Providence County Sav. Bank v. Vadnais, 25 R. I. 295. Washington. — Gilmore v. Skookum Box Factory, 20 Wash. 703. Action on Joint and Several Note under Illinois Statute. — Glines v. Ellars, 73 III. App. 553. Under thoIndianaStatute, the assignor of a note, not payable in bank, cannot be sued on the note in the same action with the maker, as can the indorser of a note payable in bank. In such case the assignor is liable to suit on the note only after the use of due diligence against the maker, or upon a showing of lawful excuse for failure to sue the maker. Huston v. Fatka, 30 Ind. App. 693. Holder Not Obliged to Sue Maker Before Suing Indorser, under New York Code Civ, Pro., § 454. — Singer v. Abrams, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 7. Under Ohio Rev. Stat., § 5149, Separate Action Will Lie Against an Irregular Indorser where the principal debtor has left the state. Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 278, 1 1 Ohio Cir. Ct. 604. West Virginia Code, ch. 99, § 11, providing that all parties liable may be sued jointly, is not intended to enlarge the liability of parties to negotiable paper, but relates only to the remedy when the liability exists.' Willis v. Willis, 42 W. Va. 522. , 3. Immediate Bight of Action on a Demand Bill or Note — Connecticut^ — Cooke v. Pomeray, 65 Conn. 466. Georgia.. — See also Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604. Iowa. — Leonard v. Olson, 99 Iowa 162, 61 Am. St. Rep. 230. Kentucky. — Cooke v. Clark, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 316. Michigan. — Peninsular Sav. Bank v.. Hosie, 112 Mich. 357; Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Vaughan, 115 Mich. 156. Nebraska. — Palmer v. McFarlane, (Neb. rgos) 102 N. W. Rep. 256. New York. — Central Bank v. Kimball, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 100 ; Field v. Sibley, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 81, affirmed 174 N. Y. 514. North Carolina. — Causey v. Snow, 122 N. Car. 326. Ohio. — Rigley v. Watts, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 229, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 645. Pennsylvania. — See also McKelvey v. Berry, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 276. Texas. — Brookshire v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 164. Vermont. — New England F. Ins. Co. v. Haynes, 71 Vt. 307, 76 Am. St. Rep. 771. Virginia. — Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Canada. — Bachand v. Lalumiere, 21 Quebec Super. Ct. 449, by Archibald, J. Payable on Demand After Date. — Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 357; Rigley v. Watts, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 229,, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct 645. Note Payable " On or After Data " Is Due and Actionable at Any Time After Date. — Brookshire v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 164. 628 Vol. JV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 343-345 343. Bill or Note Payable After Demand. — See note 4. 344. On the Bay Dae or the Next Day, — See notes 2, 3. b. Proof of Cause of Action — (i) Production of the Instrument. — See note 4. 345. (2) Execution and Indorsement — Signature of Maker and Acceptor. — See note 1. Indorsements. — See notes 2, 3. The Fact that a Demand Note Is Secured by Col- lateral does not render it necessary that demand should be made before suit brought to collect the note. Field ». Sibley, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 8i, affirmed 174 N. 1. 514. South Dakota Comp. Laws, § 4465, providing that any negotiable instrument which does not specify the terms of payment is payable imme- diately, is by section 4571 made subordinate to the intention of the parties. Tobin v. McKinney, IS S. Dak. 257, 91 Am. St. Rep. 694, affirming 14 S. Dak. 52, 91 Am. St. Rep. 688. 343. 4. Cooke v. Pomeroy, 65 Conn. 466; Larrabee v. Southard, 95 Me. 385 {Me. Rev. Stat., c. 32, § 10; Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 357; New England F. Ins. Co. v. Haynes, 71 Vt. 307, 76 Am. St. Rep. 771. An Action May Be Brought Immediately After Acceptance where it appears that the drawee is transferring his property with an intent to defraud creditors. Lustig v. McCulloch, 10 Colo. App. 41. Accrual of Cause of Action on Guaranty. — Phelps v, Sargent, 69 Minn. 118. Alternative Provision. — A note payable at a certain date or when the maker gets possession of all of the land for which the note is given ■ does not mature until the happening of the latter event. Ray County Sav. Bank v. Por- terfield, 70 Mo. App. 573. An Indorser Whose Indorsement Has Been Fro- cured by fraud of the maker may pay the note before maturity and bring suit thereon imme- diately. Davison v. Farr, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 124. 344. 2. An Extension of Time Is a Bar to an action on the note before the expiration of the extension. Fisher v.. Stevens, 143 Mo. 181. 3. No Action on the Day When Due. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Salina Paper Mfg. Co., 58 Kan. 207; Sutcliffe v. Humphreys, 58 N. J. L. 42; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., n Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. 4. Galloway v. Bartholomew, 44 Oregon 75. See also Solomon v. Brodie, 10 dplo. 3S3 ; Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 212; Davis v. Poland, 92 Va. 225. Note Not Produced Presumed Negotiable. — In re Williams, 120 Fed. Rep. 542. 345. 1. Execution by the Maker or Acceptor Must Be Proved — Arkansas. — Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 140, 86 Am. St. Rep. 183. Colorado. — Brown -v. Tourtelotte, 24 Colo. 204. See also Solomon v. Brodie, 10 Colo. App. .353- Illinois. — Kripner v. Lincoln, 66 III. App. 532; Shepherd v. Royce, 71 111. App. 321; Hin- sey v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 111. App. 278. Indiana. — Crumrine v. Crumrine, 14 Ind. App. 641; Wines v. State Bank, 22 Ind. App. 114,; Gmcitmati Barbed Wire Fence Co. v. Chenoweth, 22 Ind. App. 685 ; Fudge v. Mar- quell, (Ind. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 565; Fudge v. Marquell, (Ind. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 895; Home Nat. Bank v. Hill, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 1086. Iowa. — ■ Renner v. Thornburg, n 1 Iowa 515; Carthage Nat. Bank v. Butterbaugh, 116 Iowa 657- Kentucky. — Collins v. Partin, (Ky. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. nil. Maryland. — ■ See also Horner v. Plumley, gj Md. 271. Massachusetts. — See Sears v. Moore, 171 Mass. 51 4. Oklahoma. — ■ Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513. Oregon. — Sears v. Daly, 43 Oregon 346. Pennsylvania. — -Dexter v. Powell, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 162. Texas. — Talbot v. Dillard, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 360. ' See also Harvey v. Harvey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 185; Stowe v. Kemp- ner, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 276. Compare Crosby v. Wright, 70 Minn. 251. Proof of Execution Dispensed -with. — • Ryerson Tourcotte, 121 Mich. 7S; Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co., 117 Iowa 157; Banks v. McCosker, 82 Md. 518, 51 Am. St. Rep. 478; Hoxie v. Farmers', etc., Nat Bank, 20 Tex. Civ.' App. 462 ; Abbott v. Bowers, 98 Md. 525. See also Flint First Nat Bank v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 107 Mich. 543. Admission of Execution Presumed in Absence Denial. — Stewart v. Gleason, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 325. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Execution. — Crawford v. Crane, 61 111. App. 459 ; Pettif ord v. Mayo, 117 N. Car. 27. Admissibility of Evidence that Note Was Not Executed. — Taylor v. Gale, 14 Wash. 57. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Nonexecation. — Moore v. Palmer, 14 Wash. 134. Delivery Presumed. <— See Odell v. Clyde, (Supm. Ct. Spec T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 735, affirmed 38 N. Y. App. Div. 333. Burden of Proving Guaranty on Holder. — Hinsey v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 III. App. 278. 2. Indorsements Constituting Title Must Be Proved — • Alabama. — Slaughter v. Montgomery First Nat. Bank, 109 Ala. 157. Colorado. — Gumaer v. Sowers, 31 Colo. 166, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ad ed.) 345- Kansas. — James v. Blackman, 68 Kan. 723. Missouri. — Robinson v. Powers, 63 Mo. App. 290 ; Hugumin v. Hinds, 97 Mo. App. 346 ; Dtmlap v. Kelly, 105 Mo. App. 1. Nebraska. — Western Mattress Co. ■». Potter, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 841. New York. — Manawaring v. Keenan, (Supm. Ct App. T.) S6 N. Y. Supp. 262. 629 345-352 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 345. (V) Identity of Parties. — See note 5. 8 Amount of Recovery and Damages — a. Amount of Recovery — (1) In Case of Want or Failure of Consideration. — See note 7. 346. (2) By Transferee for Less than Face Value — (a) Against Eemote Parties. — See note 2. Modification of the Enle. — See note 3. 347. By the Pledgee. — See note 3. (b) Against an Immediate Party. — See note 4. 348. b. Damages — (1) Interest. —See note 1. (5) Costs. — See note 5. VI. Diligence Required of Holder — 1. Presentment for Acceptance a . NECESSITY OF PRESENTMENT — What Instruments Must Be Presented — Bills Payable After Sight. — See note 6. Bills Other than Those Payable After Sight — Heed Not Be Presented for Acceptance. — See note 8. 350. e. TIME OF PRESENTMENT — Must Be Within Reasonable Time. — See notes 4, 6. What Constitutes Reasonable Time. — See note 7. 352. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. — See note I. /. PLACE OF PRESENTMENT — Must Be at Drawee's Domicil. — See note 2. May Be at Dwelling House or Place of Business. — See notes 3, 4. 2. Presentment for Payment — a. Necessity of Presentment — (1) As Against Drawer or Indorser. — See note 5. North, Dakota. — Vickery v. Burton, 6 N. Dak. 245 ; Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Twichell, 7 N. Dak. 440. South Dakota. — Baker v. Warner, 16 S. Dak. 292. Virginia. — Clason v. Parrish, 93 Va. 24. 345. 3. Texas. — See Green v. Scottish- American Mortg. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 286. 5. Evidence as to the Identity of the Parties. — Tapley v. Herman, 95 Mo. App. 537 ; Vickery v. Burton, 6 N. Dak. 245. 7. Amount Apparently Due Presumed to Be Value of Note. — Wylly v. Grigsby, 11 S. Dak. 491. 346. 2. Full Face Value Recoverable. — Landsburg v. Sansone, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 576; Callahan v. Crow, 157 N. Y. 695; McNamara v. Jose, 28 Wash. 461. See also Barker v. Barth, 192 111. 46°- Purchaser with Notice May Recover Amount Paid.— Greer v. Bently, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 219. Nonnegotiable Notes — Recovery from Remote Assignor Limited to Amount Paid. — Goff v. Mil- ler, 41 W. Va. 683, 56 Am. St. Rep. 889. 3. Distinction in the Case of a Fraudulent or Illegal Instrument. — Campbell v. Brown, 100 Tenn. 245 ; People's Nat. Bank v. Mulkey, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 528. See also Hyman v. American Electric Forge Co., (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 381. Iowa Statute. — Wrayw. Warner, in Iowa 64 (under Iowa Code, § 3070). 347. 3. Johnston v. Gulledge, 115 Ga. 981 ; Forstall v. Fussell, 50 La. Ann. 256 ; Wright v. Hardie, 88 Tex. 653 ; Jackson v. Chemical Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 295. See also Yellowstone Nat. Bank v. Gag- non, 19 Mont. 4132, 61 Am. St. Rep. 520; Payne v. Zell, 98 Va. 294. 4. Note Payable in Specific Securities. — Where the note provides for the payment of a certain sum of money in specific securities the maker is not liable for the amount stated in money, but only for the value of the securities. John- son v. Dooley, 65 Ark. 71. 348. 1. Adams v. Adams, 53 N. J. Eq. 42. 5. Recovery of Costs Barred by Failure to Present, where the maker was ready at the time and place appointed to pay the note and there was no one to receive the money. Budweiser Brewing Co. v. Capparelli, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 502. i! 6. Bills Payable After Sight Must Be Presented for Acceptance. — Industrial Bank v. Bowes, 165 111. 70, 56 Am. St. Rep. 228; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Greensburg Third Nat. Bank, 19 Ind. App. 69. 8. Compare Smith v. Unangst, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 564. 350. 4. First Presentment Presumed to Be fer Acceptance. — Burrus v. Life Ins. Co., 124 N. Car. 9. 6. Presentment Must Be Made Within Reason- able Time. — Industrial Bank v. Bowes, 165 111. 70, 56 Am. St. Rep. 228 ; Gilby Bank v. Farns- worth, 7 N. Dak. 6. 7. Reasonable Time under N. Dak. Rev. Code, § 4941. — Gilby Bank v. Farnsworth, 7 N. Dak. 6. 352. 1. " Reasonable Time " Dependent upon Particular Facts of Case. — See Citizens' Nat.' Bank v. Greensburg Third Nat. Bank, 19 Ind. App. 69- 2. Whether Presentment Made at Proper Place a Question of Fact. — • Burrus v. Life Ins. Co., 121 N. Car. 62. 3. Westcott v. Patton, 10 Colo. App. 544. 4. Trottier v. Rivard, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 526. 5. Presentment for Payment Necessary to Charge Drawer or Indorser — Alabama. — Carrington v. 6-30 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 354 354. (2) As Against Acceptor or Maker — in General. — See notes 1, 2. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Moody v. Keller, 127 Ala. 630. Delaware. — Stocckle v. Gray, 1 Penn. (Del.) "7. Georgia. — Germania Bank v. Trapnell, 118 Ga. 578. Illinois. — Bowes v. Industrial Bank, 58 111. App. 498 ; Hinsey v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 111. App. 278; Arnold v. Mangan, 89 111. App. 327 ; Kimrael v. Weil, 95 111. App. 15 ; Gormley v. Hartray, 105 111. App. 625 ; Weil v. Sturgis, (Ky. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 602 (con- struing Illinois statute). Indiana. — La Follette Coal, etc., Co. v. Whiting Foundry Equipment Co., 25 Ind. App. 647. Iowa. — Trease v. Haggin, 107 Iowa 458. Kansas. — Green v. Keller, 8 Kan. App. 1 10. Kentucky. — Brown v. Crofton, 76 S. W. Rep. 37 2 » 2 5 Ky. L. Rep. 753. Louisiana. — Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. Maine. — National Shoe, etc., Bank v. Good- ing, 87 Me. 337 ; Yates v. Goodwin, 96 Me. 90. Missouri. — Myers v. Commercial Bank, 72 Mo. App. 4 ; Tucker v. Gentry, 93 Mo. App. 655; Westbay v. Stone, (Mo. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 34. New York. — Moore v. Alexander, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 100 ; Kelly v. Theiss, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 146 ; Smith v. Unangst, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 564; O'Neill v. Meighan, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 516; Moore v. Alexander, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 613, affirmed 63 N. Y. App. Div. 100 ; German-American Bank v. Atwater, 163 N. Y. 36; Harral v. Sternberger, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 274; Filler v. Gallantcheck, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 66 N. Y. Supp. 509 ; Hayward v. Empire State Sugar Co., 105 N. Y. App. Div. 21. See also Reitman v. Neulander, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 770. North Dakota. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191; Nelson v. Grondahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093. Oregon. — Carroll v. Nodine, 41 Oregon 412, 93 Am. St. Rep. 743. Pennsylvania. — Messmore v. Morrison, 172 Pa. St. 300; Deacon v. Smaltz, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 151. Tennessee. — Hutchison v. Crutcher, 98 Tenn. 421 ; Douglas v. Bank of Commerce, 97 Tenn. 133- Virginia. — Fidelity L. & T. Co. v. Engleby, 99 Va. 168. West Virginia. — National Exch. Bank v. Mc- Elfish Clay Mfg. Co., 48 W. Va. 406. Wisconsin. — Willow River Lumber Co. v. Luger Furniture Co., 102 Wis. 636. Canada. — Vanier v. Kent, 11 Quebec K. B. 373- Liability of Irregular Indorser. — In some ju- risdictions presentment and demand are neces- sary to bind an irregular indorser. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Rivers, 116 Ala. ' 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 95 ; Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162; Car- rington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529. In other jurisdictions, it is held that pre- sentment and demand are necessary to bind an irregular indorser. Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 278, n Ohio Cir. Ct. 604. Thus where the indorser is considered as an original promisor, demand is not necessary to bind him. National Exch. Bank v. Cumberland Lumber Co., iflo Tenn. 479. Bill or Note Indorsed After Maturity. — Sachs v. Fuller Bros. Toll, etc., Co., 69 Ark. 270 ; Kimmel v. Weil, 95 111. App. 15 (under Laws 1895); Jacobs v. Gibson, 77 Mo. App. 244; Moore v. Alexander, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 100; German- American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36 ; Hudson v. Walcott, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 459, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 194. Under Alabama Code of 1896, § 892 et seq., suit must be brought against the maker within the time fixed by the statute in order to charge the indorser, unless the indorser induces delay in bringing the suit. Marshall v. Bishop, 140 Ala. 206. Under N. Car. Code, 1883, § 60, making indorsers liable as sureties, demand is not necessary to fix the liability of an indorser of a promissory note. Washington First Nat. Bank v. Eureka Lumber Co., 123 N. Car. 24. One Presentment Sufficient. — Ryerson v. Tour- cot te, 121 Mich. 78. Presentment of Demand Note Essential, — Por- ter v. Thom, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 363. Texas Statute. — Vitkovitch v. Kleinecke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903.) 75 S. W. Rep. 544. Same — Express Waiver of Diligence in Bring- ing Suit. — Williams v. Rosenbaum, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 594. Presentment Essential Where Note Matures by Season of Maker's Insolvency. — Banque Nation- ale v. Martel, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 97. Presentment Not Necessary to Bind Indorser of Nonnegotiable Paper. — Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633. 354. 1. Presentment Unnecessary to Charge Maker or Acceptor — United States. — Harris- burg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt, 78 Fed. Rep. 292. Alabama. — Steiner v. Jeffries, 118 Ala. 573. Colorado. — Westcott v. Patton, 10 Colo. App., 544; Erdman v. Hardesty, 14 Colo. App. 395- Illinois. — Oxman v. Garwood, 80 111. App. 658 ; Gormley v. Hartray, 105 111. App. 625. Iowa. — Jurgensen v. Carlsen, 97 Iowa_ 627. Louisiana. — Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. Maine. — Heslan v. Bergeron, 94 Me. 395. Mississippi. — Gillespie v. Planters' Oil Mill, etc., Co., 76 Miss. 406. New York. — Budweiser Brewing Co. v. Cap- parelli, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 502 ; Wells v. Simpson, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 665 affirmed (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 63 N. Y. Supp. 1 1 18; McGowan v. Hover, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 138. South Carolina. — ■ McNair v. Moore, 55 S. Car. 435, 74 Am. St. Rep. 760. Presentment Not Necessary to Bind Joint Maker. — Elliott v. Moreland, 69 N. J. L. 216. 2. Instruments Payable on Demand — Present- ment Not Necessary as to Acceptor or Maker. — Harrisburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt, 78 Fed. Rep. 292 ; Gormley v. Hartray, 105 111. App. 625 ; Central Bank v. Kimball, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 631 355-363 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 355. (3) As Against Guarantor — Authorities Conflicting. — See note 1. 356. b. By Whom Presentment Should Be Made — (i) In the Case of Notes and Inland Bills — General Bale — By Holder m Agent. — See note 4. 357. By Personal Bepresentativs. — See note 3. 358. c. To Whom Presentment Should Be Made. — See note 2. Where Maker or Drawee Is Dead. — See note 3. 359. Joint Makers or Drawees. — See note 2. d. Mode of Presentment — (1) Possession of Instrument by Party Presenting Necessary. — See note 6. 360. (2) Demand According to Tenor of Paper Required. — See note 3. 361. (5) Where Instrument Is Payable at Holder's Residence or Place of Business. — See note 4. 362. See note 2. e. Time of Presentment — (1) Day of Presentment — {») -As Against Drawee or Maker. — See note 5. [Presentment Mast Be at Maturity. — See note 5#-] (b) As Against Drawer or Indorser — aa. Where Instrument Is Payable on Day Certain. — See notes 6, 7. 100; Field v. Sibley, 174 N. Y. 514, affirming 74 N. Y. App. Div. 81 ; Hardin v. Sweeney, 14 Wash. 129. By the Statutes of Maine (Rev. Stat., t. 32, § 10) it is provided that in an action on a promissory note payable at a place certain, either on de- mand, or on demand at or after a time speci- fied therein, the plaintiff shall not recover un- less he proves a demand made at the place of payment prior to the commencement of the suit. Heslan v. Bergeron, 94 Me. 395. Where the Note Is Partly Payable in Certain Material as Ordered by the Payee demand is es- sential. Keeffe'P. Bannin, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 361. 355. 1. Guarantor's Liability Held Absolute by Some Authorities. — Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8 ; Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 111. 492; Porter v. Andrus, 10 N. Dak. 558 j Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 278, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 604; Delsman v. Friedlander, 40 Oregon 33 ; Her- rick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633. See also Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. 356. 4. By Whom Presentment of Notes and Inland Bills Should Be Made — General Rule. — Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 TO. 492. Presentment to Bank Through Messenger. — Martin v. Smith, 108 Mich. 278. Possession of Note Indorsed in Blank Evidence of Bight to Present. — Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 111. 492. Presentment by Unauthorized Person Insufficient. — Hofrichter v. Enyeart, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 658. 357. 3. Presentment by Personal Representa- tive of Deceased Holder. — Yates v. Goodwin, 96 Me. 90. 358. 2. To Whom Presentment Should Be Made — General Rule, — Congress Brewing Co. v. Habenicht, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 141 ; Williams v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, 91 Tex. 651. 3. Presentment to One Executor Sufficient. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529. 359. 2. Presentment to Joint Makers or Drawees. — Closz v. Miracle, 103 Iowa 198. 6. Waiver of Production. — Porter v. Thom, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 34, affirmed 167 N. Y. 584. Demand by Mail Insufficient. — Closz v. Mir- acle, 103 Iowa 198. Leaving Copy with Administrator's Solicitor. — Where the maker has died, the leaving of a^ copy of the note by the holder with the ad- ministrator's solicitor, before maturity, pursu- ant to the administrator's advertisement, and a statutory declaration that the note is unpaid, do not constitute a sufficient presentment within the requirements of the Canada Bills of Ex- change Act. Eraser v. McLeod, 2 N. W. Ter. 154- 360. 3. When Formal Demand Not Essential. — McDougall v. Hazelton Tripod-Boiler Co., (C. C. A.) 88 Fed. Rep. 217- Demand on Demand Note Should Be for Present Payment. — See National Hudson River Bank v. Kinderhook, etc, R. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 232, affirmed 162 N. Y. 623. 361. 4. Instrument Payable at Particular Place — When Demand Unnecessary. — Martin v. Smith, 108 Mich. 278; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., n Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. The Rule Seems Otherwise in the Case of Demand Notes, and a formal demand is necessary. Na- tional Hudson River Bank v. Kinderhook, etc., R. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 232, affirmed 162 N. Y. 623. 362. 2. Moore v. Alexander, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 100. 5. Day of Presentment as Against Acceptor or Maker. — Merchants Bank v. Henderson, 28 Ont. 360. 5a. Presentment Must Be at Maturity. — Brown v. Crofton, 76 S. W. Rep. 372, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 753; Merchant's Bank v. Henderson, 28 Ont. 360. 6. Presentment Before Day Fixed for Payment Insufficient. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. =29 ; Congress Brewing Co. v. Habenicht, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 141 ; Creteau v. Foote, etc., Glass Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 215; Wood v. Rosendale, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 66, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 247 ; National Exch. Bank v. McElfish Clay Mfg. Co., 48 W. Va. 406. In the Case of a Series of Notes, in which it is provided that all shall mature upon default in 632 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTMS. 363-366 363. bb. Where Instrument Is Not Payable on Day Certain — Unit Bo Within Seasonable lime. — See note I. Notes Payable on Demand — To Charge an Indoner. — See note 2. Bills Payable on Demand. — See notes 1,2. , See notes i, 2. Sight Drafts. — See note 3. Paper Indorsed after Maturity. — See note 6. (2) Allowance of Days of Grace — (») Definition and Character of Grace. 364. 365. 366. — See notes 8, 9. the payment of any, the holder has a reason- able time after the default in the payment in which to make presentment. Creteau v. Foote, etc., Glass Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 215. 363. 7. Presentment After maturity — Aa to Drawer or Indorser Insufficient. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529 ; Hinsey v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 111. App. 278 ; Kelly v. Theiss, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 146 ; Creteau v. Foote, etc, Glass Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 2 1 5 ; National Exch. Bank v. McElfish Clay Mfg. Co., 48 W. Va. 406. See also Randall v. Rhode Island Lum- ber Co., 20 R. I. 625. 363. 1. Presentment Within Seasonable Time. — Sachs v. Fuller Bros. Toll, etc., Co., 69 Ark. 270 ; Arnold v. Mangan, 89 111. App. 327; Foley v. Emerald, etc., Brewing Co., 61 N. J. L. 428 ; Niles v. Bradley, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 172; Aspinall v. Viney, 206 Pa. St. 383 ; Home Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 119 Mich. 116; Aebi v. Evansville Bank, (Wis. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 329; Banque du Peuple v. Denicourt, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 428. Seasonable Time a Question of Fact under Ne- gotiable Instruments Law. — German-American Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312. Whether Seasonable Time a Question of Law or Fact. — Oley v. Miller, 74 Conn. 304. " Seasonable Time " a Mixed Question of Law and Fact. — Guckian v. Newbold, 23 R. I. 553. 594- Borden of Proving Unreasonable Delay on De- fendant. — German-American Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312. 2. Instances of Seasonable Presentment of Notes Payable on Demand — Iowa. — Leonard v. Olson, 99 Iowa 162, 61 Am. St. Rep. 230. Maine. — Yates v. Goodwin, 96 Me. 90. Massachusetts. — Merritt v. Jackson, 181 Mass. 69. Michigan. — Home Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 1 19 Mich. 116. New Jersey. — Foley v. Emerald, etc., Brew- ing Co., 61 N. J. L. 428. New York. — Wylie v. Cotter, 170 Mass. 356, 64 Am. St. Rep. 305, construing New York statute; O'Neill v. Meighan, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 516; German-American Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312. Pennsylvania. — Harrisburg Nat. Bank v. Moffitt, 10 Pa. Dist. 22. Virginia. — Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Canada. — Banque du Peuple v. Denicourt, 10 Quebec Super. Ct. 428. Usage of Trade as Affecting Time for Present- meat. — Merritt v. Jackson, 181 Mass. 69. Doctrine in Connecticut. — A written promise to pay interest semiannually in advance, con- tained in a negotiable note payable " on de- mand," makes it clear that the parties to the 633 note understood and intended that it should run for some time, and for at least six months. Accordingly, the payee of such a note is under no ' obligation to demand payment four months from its date and thereafter use due diligence to collect of the maker, in order to hold the guarantor of the note liable thereon. Beards- ley v. Hawes, 71 Conn. 39. Under Connecticut Gen. Stat, § 1859, nego- tiable demand notes remaining unpaid four months from date are considered overdue and dishonored. Oley v. Miller, 74 Conn, 304. Doctrine in New York — Indorser Not Dis- charged by Holder's Delay. — National Hudson River Bank v. Kinderhook, etc, R. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 232, affirmed 162 N. Y. 623. Minnesota Statute. — Under Minn. Stat., 1894, § 2231, presentment of a demand note is re- quired to be made before the expiration of sixty days. Ueland v. Hibbard, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 749. Burden of Proof on Plaintiff. — Merritt v. Jack- son, 181 Mass. 69. Note Indorsed After Maturity. — What consti- tutes a reasonable time for demanding payment of notes indorsed after maturity, and giving notice if not paid, so as to hold the indorser, is not measured by an arbitrary period of time, but depends upon, and must be ascertained from, the facts of each case. German-American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36. 364. 1. Bills Payable on Demand. — Aebi v. Evansville Bank, (Wis. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 329 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 2. " Seasonable Time " Determined by Circum- stances. — Arnold v. Mangan, 89 111. App. 327. "Seasonable Time" Determined by Circum- stances. — Aebi v. Evansville Bank, (Wis. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 329 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 365. 1. Aebi v. Evansville Bank, (Wis. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 329 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 2. Aebi v. Evansville Bank, (Wis. 190s) 102 N. W. Rep. 329 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 3. Presentment of Sight Drafts. -1- See also Smith v. Unangst, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 564. Under Idaho Statute ten days, in addition ' to a reasonable time, are allowed for the pre- sentment of bills payable at sight. Chambers v. Custer County, 8 Idaho 724. 6. Bills Indorsed Overdue Most Be Presented Within Seasonable Time. — Kimmel v. Weil, 95 III. App. 15. 366. 8. Origin of the Expression "Days of Grace," — Blacker v. Ryan, 65 Mo. App. 230. 9. At Present Grace Allowed as Matter of Sight. — Portsmouth Sav. Sank v. Wilson, 5 App. 367-370 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 367. 368. 369. 370. (b) On What Instruments Grace Ib Allowed. — See notes 2, 3. Bills and Notes Payable on Demand. — See note I . Bills or Notes Expressly Payable Without Grace. — See note 2. (c) Term of Grace Allowed. — See note 3. (3) Reckoning of Time — (a) Beckoning of Days. — See note 4. Last Day of Grace Falling on Sunday or Legal Holiday. — See note 6. See note 1. Paper Falling Due on Sunday Without Grace. — See note 2. (b) Beckoning of Months. — See notes 3, 4. (c) From What Time Maturity Is Beckoned. — See note I. (4) Hour of Presentment. — See note 3. When Presentment Is Made at a Bank. — See note 5- Cas. (D. C.) 8; Steinau v.. Moody, 100 Ga. 136 ; Blacker v. Ryan, 65 Mo. App. 230 ; Wood v. Rosendale, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 66, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 247 ; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. Grace Allowed under South Dakota Bev. Civ. Code, § 2236. — Davis v. Brady, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 719. Grace Allowed by Iowa Code, 1873, § 2092. — Trease v. Haggin, 107 Iowa 458. Grace Abolished by Negotiable Instruments Law. — See Crawford's Annot. Neg. Inst. L. (2d ed.), § 145. Grace Abolished by Mass. Stat. 1896, c. 496, p. 494.— Lowell Trust Co. v . Pratt, 183 Mass. 379- Effect of Abolishment by Statute. — A statute abolishing days of grace does not have a retro- active effect so as to apply to contracts entered into before its passage, or after its passage and before the day on which it goes into effect. Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543 ; Wood v. Rosendale, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 66, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 247. What Law Governs — As to Allowance of Grace. — Weller v. Goslin, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 36; Pawcatuck Nat. Bank v. Barber, 22 R. I. 77, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 366. 367. 2. Waiver of Protest Not a Waiver of Grace. — Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136. 3. Grace Allowed on Negotiable Bills and Notes Generally. — Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136; Blacker v. Ryan, 65 Mo. App. 230 ; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18; Du- puis v. Hudon, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 227. Sight Bills and Notes. — Grace not allowed under Georgia statute. Steinau -u. Moody, 100 Ga. 136. Nonnegotiable Instruments — Grace Not Al- lowed, — Tranter v~ Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265 ; Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136 ; Davis v. Brady, (S. Dak. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 719. 36 S. 1. Bills and Notes Payable on Demand .Not Entitled to Grace. — Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136; Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Wool- sey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 761, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 368. 2. The Term " Fixed " Signifies Without Grace. — Doyle v. Birmingham First Nat. Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41 ; Steinau v. Moody, 100 Ga. 136; Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757- 3. Local Customs as to Days of Grace must be alleged and proved. Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265. 4. Doyle v. Birmingham First Nat. Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41. 6. Beckoning of Days — Where Last Day of Grace Is Sunday. — Capital Nat. Bank v. Ameri- can Exch. Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 707. In Nebraska. — The common-law rule re- specting the time of presentment of instru- ments with grace, which expire on Sunday, is not abrogated by the Nebraska Act of 1873, § 1, designating certain days to be observed as holidays in respect to bills, notes, and checks. Capital Nat. Bank v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 707, overruling Hastings First Nat. Bank v. McAllister, 33 Neb. 646, over- ruled 51 Neb. 707. 369. 1 . Last Day of Grace a Legal Holiday, — , Capital Nat. Bank v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 707. 2. Paper Due on Sunday or Holiday Without Grace. — Balkwill v. Bridgeport Wood Finishing Co., 62 111. App. 663 ; Capital Nat. Bank v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 707. See also Morris v. Bailey, 10 S. Dak. 507. In Kentucky, where an instrument not en- titled to grace falls due on Sunday, it matures on the secular day next preceding. Tranter v. Hibbard, 108 Ky. 265. 3. Doyle v. Birmingham First Nat. Bank, 131 Ala. 297, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 369. 4. Doyle v. ■ Birmingham First Nat. Bank, 131 Ala. 297, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 369. 370. 1. Maturity Beckoned from Date. — Meyer v. Foster, (Cal. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 402. 3. Hour of Presentment — In General, — Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. 5. Hour of Presentment at Bank. — Metropoli- tan Bank v. Engel, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 273; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. While presentment may be made at any hour before the usual hour of closing the bank, and the note protested for nonpayment, the maker has until the close of the business day in which to make his payment to the bank; and where a deposit is made for that purpose after the demand of payment, but before the close of the bank, the protest becomes of no avail. German-American Bank v. Milliman, (County Ct.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 87. The Fact that the Notary Protesting the Note Presented It After Banking Hours Is Immaterial 634 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 371-379 371. Specified 372. note 2. 373. See note 374. 375. 376. note 2. 377. 378. 379. Exchange. - /. Place of Presentment — (i) Where Instrument Is Payable at Place — (a) As Between Holder and Drawer or Indorser. — See note 2. See note i. Designation of Locality Without Specification of Particular Place Therein, — See 4- (b) As Between Holder and Maker of Note — Doctrine in England. — See note 3. Doctrine in United States — Want of Demand as Bar to Damages Against Maker. — Notes Payable on Demand. — See note 4. (0) As Between Holder and Acoeptor of Bill — Rule under Statute. — See note 4. (3) Where Instrument Is Payable Generally — General Bui*. — See Place of Business. — See note 6. Requisites as to Place of Business. — See note 2. Presentment at Place of Date of Note. — See note 5. Presentment at the Place of Address of Bill. — See note 3. b. What Instruments Must Be Protested — Foreign Bills of -See note 1. Inland Bills. — See note 5. where the note has already been presented for payment during banking hours. Metropolitan Bank v. Engel, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 273. 371. 2. Indorser of Note. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 111. 492; Brown v. Crof- ton, 76 S. W. Rep. 372, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 753 ; National Hudson River Bank v. Kinderhook, etc., R. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 232, affirmed 162 N. Y. 623 ; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80; Hutchison v. Crutcher, 98 Tenn. 421 ; Rose v. McCracken, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 637 ; Nelson v. Grondahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093; Vanier v. Kent, 11 Quebec K. B. 373- Drawer of Bill. — Douglas v. Bank of Com- merce, 97 Tenn. 133. 372. 1. Presentment at Specified Place Suffi- cient. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 111. 492 ; Nelson v. Grondahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093. See also Bartholomew v. Everett First Nat. Bank, 18 Wash. 683. Error in Description of Place — What Consti- tutes Sufficient Presentment. — Pawcatuck Nat. Bank v. Barber, 22 R. I. 73. 2. Locality of Payment Designated Generally. — Wood v. Rosendale, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 66, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 247 ; Williams u. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, 91 Tex. 651, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 372. Possession by Notary as Holder's Agent. — Williams v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, 91 Tex. 651, citing '4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 372. 373. 3. England — Presentment at Place Designated Necessary as to Maker. — Merchants' Bank v. Henderson, 28 Ont. 360. Under the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act of 1890, presentment at a particular place at ma- turity is not necessary in order to charge the maker of a promissory note. Merchants' Bank v. Henderson, 28 Ont. 360. 4. Presentment at Place Designated Unneces- sary. — Westcott v. Patton, 10 Colo. App. 544; Dillingham v. Parks, 30 Ind. App. 61 ; Mon- treal Bank v. Ingerson, 105 Iowa 349 ; Chapman v. Wagner, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 412; McNair u. Moore, 55 S. Car. 438, 74 Am. St. Rep. 760, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 373 ; Hardin v. Sweeney, 14 Wash. 129; Ray v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 926. 374. 4. Doctrine Applied to Demand Notes. — Rigley v. Watts, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 229, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 645. 375. 4. Indian Territory Bank v. Buchanan County First Nat. Bank, 109 Mo. App. 665. 376. 2. Instruments Payable Generally. — Strawberry Point Bank v. Lee, 117 Mich. 122; Sturges v. Williams, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 33, Cleve. L. Rec. 39, affirmed 9 Ohio St. 443, 75 Am. .Dec. 473 ; Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lum- ber Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. Bight of Maker to Designate Place of Payment. - — Rose v. McCracken, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 637. Place Fixed by Agreement. — Rose v. .Mc- Cracken, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 637. 6. Presentment at Place of Business. — Evans v. Geo. D. Cross Lumber Co.,' 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 543, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 80. Payment at Place of Business Where No Place Named in Note. — McCruden v. Jonas, 173 Pa. St. 507, si Am. St. Rep. 774. 377. 2. Presentment at an Abandoned Plaoe of Business Is Not Sufficient. — Reinke v. Wright, 93 Wis. 368. 5. Inquiry at Place of Date. — Overland Gold Min. Co. v. McMaster, 19 Utah 177. Place of Date Prima Facie Place of Payment. — Rose v. McCracken, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 637. 378. 3. Place of Address of Bill. — Weller v. Goslin, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 37, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 378. 379. 1. Protest of Foreign Bill Indispensable. — Alabama Nat. Bank v. Rivers, 116 Ala. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 95 ; Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60 ; Hays v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 101 Ky. 201 ; Richland Bank v. Nicholson, 120 Ga. 622 ; Amsinck v. Rogers, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 428. 6. Protest of Inland Bills Unnecessary. — Mur- phey v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, no Ky. 223; King 635 384-387 BILLS OF EXCHANGE VoL IV. 380. Promissory Not*. — See note i. 381. c. Formalities of Making Protest — (2) The Certificate of Protest - (a) The Contents — aa. Description of Instrument Protested — Literal Tari- HM Immaterial. — See note 3. bb. Fact and Mode of Presentment. — See note 5- cc. Person to Whom Presentment Is Made. — See note 8. 382. dd. Person by Whom Presentment Is Made. — See note I. ee. Time of Presentment. — See note 2. ff. Place of Presentment, — See note 3. 383. gg. Demajjd of Pavmsnt. — See note 1. hh. Refusal of Acceptance or Payment. — See note 2. 384. (3) When Protest Should Be Made — Noting. — See note 3. Of What the Noting Consists. — See note 4. d. Protest as Evidence — (2) Of Fa£ls Therein — (a) Genwairj. — 386. See note 1, 387. As to What Instruments Evidence Admissible at Common Law. — See notes 1,2, 3. v. Griggs, 82 Minn. 387 ; Richland Bank v. Nicholson, 120 Ga. 622. Under Statute. — Ewen v. Wilbor, 208 111. 492. 380. 1. Protest of Promissory Notes Unneces- sary. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Pat- tiflo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60; State Bank of Chicago v. Carr, 130 N. Car. 479 ; Willow River Lumber Co. v. Luger Furniture Co., 102 Wis. 636; Nelson v. Killingley First Nat. Bank, (C. C. AS) 69 Fed. Rep. 798. Under Statute. — The Texas Rev. Stat. 1895, Art. 315, providing that the liability of the drawer or indorser of any bill of exchange or promissory note, assignable or negotiable by the law mer- chant, may be fixed by protest and notice thereof, is not limited to instruments -origi- nating in transactions between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents. Williams -v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 617. Protest Necessary to Charge Maker. — See Beissner v. Weekes, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 14. 38 1 . 3 . misdescription as to Date. — N orthup v. Cheney, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 418. 5.' Statement of Fact of Presentment Necessary. — Mason v. Kilcourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 21. Statement of Sue Diligence Where There Is Failure to Present. — Williams v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, 91 Tex. 651. 8. Statement as to Person to Whom Pre- sentment Is Blade. — Union Nat. Bank v . Wil- liams Milling Co., 117 Mich. 535. Where Dill Is Payable at a Bank. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. 382. 1. Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Mill- ing Co., 117 Mich. 535. 2. Statement as to Time of Presentment Neces- sary. — Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 117 Mich. 535. 3. Statement as to Place of Presentment, — Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 217 Mich. S3S. 383. 1. Recital of Presentment Without Men- tion of Demand. — Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 117 Mich. 535. 2. Refusal of Acceptance of Payment. — Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 117 Mich. 535- 3S4. 3. Noting on Day of Presentment. — 636 Mattingly v. Bank of Commerce, (Ky. 1899) S3 S- W. Rep. 1043 ; Moreland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293; Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 117 Mich. S3S. Destruction of memorandum After Protest Exe- cuted Does Not Affect Validity. — Moreland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293. - 4. Of What Noting Consists. — Moreland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293. Writing the Word " Protested " on Face of BH1 and writing out notices at the same time is sufficient. Mattingly v. Bank of Commerce, (Ky. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 1043. 386. 1. Protest as Evidence of Facts Therein — Arkansas. — Fletcher v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 62 Ark. 265, S4 Am. St. Rep. 294. Georgia. — Hobbs v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 324. Kentucky. — Mattingly v. Bank of Commerce, (Ky. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 1043. Michigan. — Martin v. Smith, 108 Mich. 278. Missouri. — State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47 1 Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404. New York. — Northup v. Cheney, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 418; Persons v. Kruger, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 187 ; Solomon -v. Cohen, (Snpm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 5 o2. Pennsylvania. — Historical Pub. Co. v . Hart- ranft, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 59; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; Union Safe Deposit Bank v. Strauch, 20 Pa. SupeT. Ct. 196. Tennessee. — Douglas v. Bank of Commerce, 97 Tenn. 133 ; City Sav. Bank v. Kensington Land Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1037; Chattanooga First Nat. Bank v. Reid, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 1124. Wisconsin. — Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18. Evidence Open to Rebuttal. — Historical Pub. Co. v. Hartranft, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 59. 387. 1. Protest of Foreign Bill Evidence at Common Law. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191 ; Brandon First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 70 Vt. S99- 2. Protest of Foreign Note as Evidence. See also Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. igi. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 387-394 387. As to What Instruments Evidence Admissible under Statute. — See note 5- (b) Presentment and Demand — Foreign Bills. — See note 6. 388. Inland Bills and Promissory Notes. — See notes I, 2. (a) Dishonor. — See note 3. Inland Bills and Promissory Notes. — See note 5- 380. (d) Notice of Dishonor — aa. Generally — Bule at Common Law. — See note 2. Bulo under Statute. — See note 3. 390. 66. The Fact of Notice. — See note 8. ec. Manner of Giving Notice. — See note 9. 391. ee. Place of Giving Notice — Becital of Hailing Notice to Place of Residents or Business. — See note 6. 393. (e) Collateral Facts. — See note 3. 394. See note 2. (4) Protest as Secondary Evidence. — See note 6. 387. 3. Protest of Intend Notes Not Evidence. — Schofield v. Palmer, 134 Fed. Rep. 753. 5. Protest of Inland Bills and Notes Evidence under Statute. — Nelson v. Killingley First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 798; Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555; Union Nat. Bank v. Williams Milling Co., 117 Mich. 535; Persons ■8. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187; Biber v. Schmidt, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 777 (under Negotiable Instruments Law) ; German-American Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312; Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191; Union Safe Deposit Bank v. Strauch, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 196; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18; Nelson v. Grondalnl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093. Under New Jersey Statute. — Mason v. Kil- eourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. a I. The Virginia Statute, making the notary's cer- tificate prima facie evidence of what is stated therein, seems to have been repealed by the Act of Dec. 24, 1903. Schofield i». Palmer, 134 Fed. Rep. 753- 6. Protest as Evidence of Presentment of Foreign Bills. — Brandon First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 70 Vt 599. Bill Payable in Another State. — Nelson v. Kil- Kngley First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 798; Persons b. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187. 388. 1. Protest of Inland Bills Evidence of Presentment under Statute. — Ewen v. Wilbor, 208 111. 492; Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. 2. Protest of Promissory Note Evidence of Pre- sentment under Statute; — State v. Edmonds, 66 Mo. App. 47 ; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404; Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. Aa to Person to Whom Presentment Is Made. — When a note is payable at a bank, a statement in the certificate of protest that it was pre- sented at the place of payment, and payment demanded, is sufficient evidence of a legal de- mand, without a further statement to whom it was presented for payment. Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. 8. Bills Payable in Another State. — Persons v. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187. 5. Protest of Promissory Note as Evidence of Dishonor under Statute. — State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47 ; Rolla State Bank if. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404. See also Historical Pub. Co. v. Hartranft, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 59.. Protest as Evidence under N. V. Cede Civ. Froc, § 923. — Cuming v. Roderick, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 253. 389. 2. Protest of Promissory Note No Evi- dence of Notice of Dishonor at Common Lav. — Schofield v. Palmer, 134 Fed. Rep. 753, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 389 ; Brandon First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 70 Vt. 599- 3. Protest of Foreign Bill as Evidence under Statute. — State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47 ; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404 r Persons v. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187 ; Union Safe Deposit Bank v. Straucb, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 196; Brandon First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 70 Vt. 599. Protest of Inland Bills as Evidence. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. Protest of Promissory Notes as Evidence — Mich- igan. — Martin v. Smith, ia8 Mich. 278. New York. — McLean v. Ryan, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 281, affirmed 165 N. Y. 620 ; German- Amer- ican Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312. North Dakota. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. Pennsylvania. — Historical Pub. Co. v. Hart- ranft, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 59 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621. Tennessee. — City Sav. Bank v. Kensington Land Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1037. Vermont Statutes, § 2310, making protests evi- dence does not apply to protests made without the state. Brandon First Nat. Bank v. Briggs, 70 Vt. 599. 390. S. The Fact of Notice Host Be Stated. — Biber v. Schmidt, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 777 (under Negotiable Instru- ments Law) ; Mason v. Kijeourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 2t. 9. Nonreceipt of Notice in Rebuttal under N. Y. Code. Civ. Proc., g 923. — Persons v. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187. 391 . 6. Notice Should State that Letter Was Properly Stamped. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621. 393. 3. Protest Not Evidence of Collateral Facts. — Nelson v. Kastle, 105 Mo. App. 187. 394. 2. Season for Refusal of Acceptance or Payment. — Nelson v. Kastle, 105 Mo. App. 187. 6. Protest as Secondary Evidence. — Sextom ti. Perrigo, 126 Mich. 544, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 394. Notary's Certificate Inadmissible under Hieh. Com p. Law* (1897), §2634, where defendant 637 395-397 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV 395. (5) Protest Used to Assist Notary's Memory. — See note 4. 396. (6) Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence in Aid of Protest — As Be- garda Inland Bills and Promissory Notes. — See notes 2, 3. 397. e. NOTARIAL FEES — Protest of Inland Bill or Promissory Note. — See note 2. 4. Notice of Dishonor — b. Necessity of Notice — (1) To Fix Liability of Drawer or Indorser — (a) Generally. — See notes 6, 7. Kansas. — Malott v. Jewett, i Kan. App. 14; C. C. Thompson, etc., Co. v. Appleby, 5 Kan. App. 680; Green v. Keller, 8 Kan. App. no. Kentucky. — Hays v. Citizen's Sav. Bank, 101 Ky. 201 ; Brown v. Crofton, 76 S. W. Rep. 372, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 753' Louisiana. — Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. Maine. — Yates v. Goodwin, 96 Me. 90. Maryland. — Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136. Massachusetts. — Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379. Michigan. — Barger v. Farnham, 130 Mich. 487. Missouri. — Johnson v. Parker, 86 Mo. App. 660 ; Tucker v. Gentry, 93 Mo. App. 655 ; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404 ; West- bay v. Stone, (Mo. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 34- New Jersey. — Mason v. Kilcourse, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 21. New York. — Kelly v. Theiss, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 146; Smith v. Unangst, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 564; Philip, etc., Ebling Brewing Co. v. Reinheimer, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 594 ; Moore v. Alexander, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 613, affirmed 63 N. Y. App. Div. 100 ; German- American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36; Harral v. Sternberger, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 274; Traders' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 104 N. Y. App. Div. 433 ; Solomon v. Cohen, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 502. North Dakota. — Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191 ; Nelson v. Grondahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093. Ohio. — Henry v. Spengler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 362, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 153. Oregon. — Carroll v. Nodine, 41 Oregon 412, 93 Am. St. Rep. 743. Pennsylvania. — Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. St. 543; Deacon v. Smaltz, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 151. Rhode Island. — '■ McLean v. Bryer, 24 R. I. 599- Tennessee. — Carnegie Steel Co. v. Chatta- nooga Constr. Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 102. Texas. — Beauchamp v. Chester, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1055. Utah. — Burnham v. McCornick, 18 Utah 42. Virginia. — Tidball v. Shenandoah Nat. Bank, 98 Va. 768 ; Fidelity L. & T. Co. v. Engleby, 00 Va. 168. West Virginia. — National Exch. Bank v. McElfish Clay Mfg. Co., 48 W. Va. 406. Wisconsin. — Willow River Lumber Co. v. Luger Furniture Co., 102 Wis. 636. Canada. — Vanier v. Kent, 1 1 Quebec K. B. 373; Trottier v. Rivard, 23 Quebec Super. Ct! 526. Under Alabama Code of 1896, § 892 et seq makes affidavit denying having received notice. Sexton v. Perrigo, 126 Mich. 542. 395. 4. Protest Itself Admitted. — City Sav. Bank v. Kensington Land Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1037. 396. 2. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; Nelson v. Grondahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093. A Representative of the Payee may defend a suit against the maker by the indorsee, and show that the payee was induced to transfer the note through the fraud and undue influence of the indorsee. Coon v. Dennis, in Mich. 450. 3. Extrinsic Evidence Admissible in Aid of Pro- test of Notes or Inland Bills. — Nelson v. Gron- dahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093 ; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18. Omission as to Notice May Be Supplied by No- tary's Evidence. — ■ Williams v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 617. ^Omission as to Presentment. — ■ Nelson v. Gron- dahl, (N. Dak. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1093; Williams v. Planters', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 617. Where the Notary Protesting the Note Is Cashier or the Holder his credibility is of the determina- tion of the jury. Kingsland Land Co. v. New- man, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 1. 397. 2. Under Mass. Pub. Stat., c. 77, § 22, fees may be recovered for protest of promissory note. Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555. 6. Notice of Nonacceptance to Charge Drawer or Indorser. — Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126; Germania Bank v. Trapnell, 118 Ga. 578; Industrial Bank v. Bowes, 165 111. 70, 56 Am. St. Rep. 228 ; Bowes v. Industrial Bank, 58 111. App. 498 ; Murphey v. Citizens Sav. Bank, no Ky. 225; Torpey v. Tebo, 184 Mass. 307 ; Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92. 7. Notice of Dishonor by Nonpayment Necessary — United States. — Nelson v. Killingley First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 798; In re Edson, 119 Fed. Rep. 487. Alabama. — Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Moody v. Keller, 127 Ala. 630. Delaware. — Stoeckle v. Gray, 1 Penn. (Del.) 117; Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330. District of Columbia. — Walker v. Washing- ton Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. Georgia. — Richland Bank v. Nicholson, 120 Ga. 622, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 397. Illinois. — Hinsey v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 73 111. App. 278 ; Kimmel v. Weil, 95 111. App. 15. Indiana. — La Follette Coal, etc., Co. v. Whiting Foundry Equipment Co., 25 Ind. App. 647- Iowa. — Trease v. Haggin, 107 Iowa 458. 638 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 399-401 399. Notice to Successive Indorsers. — See notes 2, 4. 400. See note 1. 401 . (b) Indorser of Note Before Delivery — Indorser Considered ai Maker. — See note 3. Indorser Considered as Ordinary Indorser. — See note 4. suit must be brought against the maker within the time fixed by the statute in order to charge the indorser, unless the indorser induces delay in bringing the suit. Marshall v. Bishop, 140 Ala. 206. Georgia. — Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60; Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126; Germania Bank v. Trapnell, 118 Ga. 578; Richland Bank ' v. Nicholson, 1 20 Ga. 622 ; Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Warner, 96 Ga. 370. Notice to surety not required. Hunnicutt v. Perot, 100 Ga. 312. While the mere failure of the holder of a domestic bill of exchange to give the drawer notice that the bill has been dishonored will not discharge him, if statements are made by the holder to the drawer to the effect that the bill has been paid, which statements lull the drawer into security, and as a consequence thereof injury results to him by reason of the depreciation in value of property pledged to secure the payment of the bill, the drawer will be discharged to the extent of the injury thus sustained. Richland Ban^ v. Nicholson, 120 Ga. 622. By Kentucky Stat., § 489, every person who signs his name upon the back of a promissory note is liable as an assignor unless a different purpose is expressed in the writing, and to hold him liable the maker must ordinarily be prosecuted to insolvency at the first term of the court after the maturity of the note ; but if the assignor, either by words or acts, induces the assignee to refrain from prompt institution of the suit against the maker, he is estopped from relying upon such failure as a defense when sued on the assignment. American Nat. Bank v. Small- house, 113 Ky. .147. By Mass. Stat. 1898, c. 533, § 115, notice to the indorser is not required where he is the person to whom the instrument is presented for pay- ment. In re Swift, 106 Fed. Rep. 65. Under N. Car. Code, 1883, § 50, making in- dorsers liable as sureties, notice is not neces- sary. Washington First Nat. Bank v. Eureka Lumber Co., 123 N. Car. 24. Under Statute in Texas. — Blakey v. Allen, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 39; Smith v. Ojerholm, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 1 1 1 ; Smith v. T. M. Richardson Lumber Co., 92 Tex. 448 ; Vitkovitch v. Klein- ecke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 75 S. W. Rep. 544. This statute does not apply where it is sought to hold the original promisor liable. Beissner v. Weekes, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 14. Same — Express Waiver of Diligence in Bring- ing Suit. — Williams v. Rosenbaum, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 594. Notice Essential Though Note Matures by Rea- •on of Maker's Insolvency. — Banque Nationale v. Martel, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 97. Joint Indorsers — Notice to Each Essential to Bind Him. — Bowie v. Hume, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 286. Notice of Dishonor of Demand Note Essential. — Porter v. Thorn, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 363. An Indorser to Whom a Note Has Been Sent for Collection Is Not Excused by His Neglect to give himself notice. Auten v. Manistee Nat. Bank, 67 Ark. 243. Inability to Make Presentment for Payment Does Not Excuse Failure to Give Notice of Protest. — Reed v. Spear, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 1007. Burden of Proving Notioe. — Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30 ; Historical Pub. Co. v. Hartranf t, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 59. 399. 2. Notioe Given by Holder to All the Successive Indorsers. — - Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330. See also Hazlett v. Bragdon, 7 Pa. Super. Ct.. 581. 4. Notice to Indorser to Be Charged Sufficient. — Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330 ; Lyddane v. Owensboro Banking Co., (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 453; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404; Oakley v. Can, 66 Neb. 751. Under Ky. Stat., § 3725, notice to all of the in- dorsers is not essential. Lyddane v. Owens- boro Banking Co., (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 453. 400. 1. Notice to Prior Indorser May Be Given by Immediate Indorsee. — Standard Sew- ing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330 ; University Press v. Williams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 188. Preparation of New Notice Not Essential. — The notice served by the last indorser need not be actually prepared by him, but he may adopt and utilize for that purpose a notice sent him by the protesting officer, addressed to the next prior indorser. Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751. 401. 3. Indorser Considered as Maker. — New York L. Tns. Co. v. McKellar, 68 N. H. 326; McFetrich v. Woodrow, 67 N. H. 174; Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 2^8, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 604 ; National Exch. Bank v. Cum- berland Lumber Co., 100 Tenn. 479; Kennon v. Bailey, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 28. Indorsers Before Delivery Who Are Recognized as Indorsers are entitled to notice, even though they were, prima facie, joint makers. Carolina Sav. Bank v. Florence Tobacco Co., 4s S. Car. 373- In West Virginia unless the payee agrees to treat such an indorser as an indorser notice of nonpayment is not necessary to hold him as a joint maker or gaurantor. Miller v. Clendenin, 42 W. Va. 416. 4. Indorser Considered as Ordinary Indorser. — Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162; Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529 ; Alabama Nat. Bank v. Rivers, 116 Ala. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 95; Howard v. Van Gieson, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 77. See also Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. Massachusetts Statute. — Brooks v. Stackpole, 168 Mass. 537; Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555; New York L. Ins. Co. v. McKellar, 68 N. H. 326. This statute does not refer to a collateral con- tract made' subject to the issuing of a note, and upon an independent consideration, even though it is indorsed upon the note. Equitable Marine Ins. Co. v. Adams, 173 Mass. 436. 639 402-410 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 403. 403. note 8. 404. 405 (c) Indorser after Maturity. — See notes 3, 4. (e) What Instruments Require Notice — Nonnegotiable Instruments. see (2) To Fix Liability of Maker or Acceptor. — See notes 1, 2. (3) To Fix Liability of Guarantor — Doctrine in the United States — Guaranty of Collectibility of Paper. — See note 3. Guaranty Considered as Absolute Contract. — See note 5- 400. Guaranty Considered as Conditional Contract. — See note I. 407. Damage by the Holder'* Neglect Necessary. — See note I. 408. c. By Whom Notice May Be Given — (i) In General— Kay Coma from Any Party to Faner. — See notes 5, 7. 400. Notice by Acceptor or Maker. — See note 3. (3) Agents. — See note 7. Notaries Public. — See note II. 410. See note 1. Agents for Collection. — See notes 2, 3. 402. 3. Indorsement After Maturity. — De Hass v. Dibert, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 227 ; Kimmel ». Weil,. 95 111. App. 15 ; Jacobs v. Gib- son, 77 Mo. App. 244. 4. Indorser After Maturity — Notice Required. — Sachs v. Fuller Bros. Toll, etc., Co., 69 Ark. 270; Kimmel f. Weil, 95 M- App. I 5; Jacobs v. Gibson, 77 Mo. App. 244; German-American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36 ; Moore v. Alex- ander, 63 N. Y. App. Dfv. 100 ; Hudson v. Wal- cott, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 459, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 194; Landon v. Bryant, 69 Vt. 203. Texas Statute— Duty of Holder as to Bringing Suit. — See Hotlimon v. Karger, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 5S8- 403. 8. Nonnegotiable Paper — Notice Held Unnecessary. — Smith v. Tyler First State Bank, (Minn. 1905) 104 N. W. Rep. 369, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 403 ; Burke v. Ward, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 1047 ; Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633- Under Alabama Civ. Cade, § 892 et sea.., to charge the indorser or assignor of non- negotiable paper, suit must first be brought against the maker within the time specified by the statute. Brown v. Fowler, 133 Ala. 310. 404. 1. To. Fix Liability of Maker. — Tuck v. National Bank, 108 Ga. 446, 75 Am. St. Rep. 69 ; Oxman v. Garwood, 80 111. App. 658 ; Red- den v. Lambert, 112 La. 740; Barger v. Farn- fcam, 130 Mich. 487; McGowan v. Hover, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 138; Bush v. Gilmare, 45, N. Y. App. Div. 89; Furth v. Baxter, 24 Wash. 608. Surety for Maker. — Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126. 2. To. Fix Liability of Acceptor. — Gillespie v. Planters' Oil Mill, etc., Co., 76 Miss. 406. 405. 3. Guarantor of Collectibility Released by Want of Notice. — Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60. 6. Guaranty of Payment Considered Absolute — District of Columbia. — Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8. Georgia. — Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126. Illinois. — Ewen v. Wilbor, 99 111. App. 132, affirmed 208 111. 492. Louisiana. — See Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740. Missouri. — Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 633. North Dakota. — Dunham v. Peterson, 5 N. Dak. 414, 57 Am. St. Rep. 556 ; Porter v. Andrus, 10 N. Dak. 558. Ohio. — See Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 278, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 604. Oregon. — Delsman v. Friedlander, 40 Ore- gon 33. Vermont. — Stevens v. Gibson, 69 Vt. 142. 406. I. Guaranty of Payment - Considered Conditional. — Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sigs- tad, 96 Iowa 491 ; Farrer v. People's Trust Co., 63 Kan. 88 1 „ 64 Pac. Rep. 1031 ; Pawtucket First Nat. Bank v. Adamson, 25 R. I. 73. 407. I. Guarantor Must Suffer Damage by Want of Notice. — Grier v. Irwin, (Iowa 1901I 86 N. W. Rep. 273 ; Pawtucket First Nat. Bank v. Adamson, 25 R. I. 73. Insolvency of Principal at Maturity of Paper. — Grier v. Irwin, (Iowa 1901) 86 N. W. Rep. 273. 408. 5. By Whom Notice to Be Given. — State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App.' 47 ; Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751 ; University Press v. Wil- liams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 188; Ashe v. Beas- ley, 6 N. Dak. 191. 7. Enclosing Notice Addressed to Indorser in Notice Addressed to Another Indorser Insufficient. — Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Warner, 96 Ga. 370. 409. 3. Maker Acting as Agent of Holder May Give Notice to Indorser. — Traders' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 104 N. Y. App. Div. 433. 7. Notice Given by Agent of Holder — In Gen- eral. — ■ State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47. Notice by Unauthorized Person Insufficient. — Hofrichter v. Enyeart, (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 658. 11. Notaries as Agents to Give Notice. — Nelson v. Killingley First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 798; State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47. 410. 1. Schofietd v. Palmer, 134 Fed. Rep. 753 ; Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330. Statute — Missouri. — Compare State v. Ed- munds, 66 Mo. App. 47. Notary Not Generally Liable for Neglect in Giving Notice. — State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. . App. 47. 2. Agent for Collection. — Ashe v. Beasley 6 N. Dak. 191. 640 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 410 430 410. d. To Whom Notice May Be Given — (2) Where Party to Be Notified Is Dead. — See note 9. 411. Notice to Drawer's or Indorser's Place of Besidence. — See note 2. 413. (3) Where Parly to Be Notified Is a Bankrupt — Notioe Subsequent to Appointment. — See note 4. 413. (4) Agents. — See note 1. General Agent. — See note 2. Agents Acting under Implied Authority. — See note 3. 414. (5) Partners. — See note 1. (6) Joint Drawers or Indorsers. — See note 4. e. Formal Requisites of Notice — (i) In General— No Particu- lar Form of Language Necessary. — See note 6. Notice May Be Verbal or in Writing. — See note 7. 417. (4) Contents — (b) Description of Paper. — See note I. 430. (c) Statement of Fact of Dishonor — Generally. — See notes 2, 3. Some Specific Statements. — See note 4. 410. 3. Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191. 9. Under Canada Statute. — Merchants' Bank v. Brown, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 599 (construing Canada contract.). 411. 2. No Personal Representative Qualified — Notice to Last Besidence. — Deininger v. Mil- ler, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 188. A notarial notice of protest of nonpayment of a note, addressed to an indorser as if living, when the indorser is dead, if actually received by his administrator, is good to charge such in- dorser's estate. Ravenswood Bank v. Wetzel, (W. Va. 1905) So S. E. Rep. 886. 412. 4. Notice to Bankrupt After Appoint- ment of Assignee. — Moreland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 577, 102 Am. St. Rep. 293. 413. 1. Notice to Agent. — Kelly v. Theiss, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 81 ; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 188; Reed ■v. Spear, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 1007; Counsell v. Livingston, 4 Ont. L. Rep. 340, affirming 2 Ont. L. Rep. 582. Service on Wife of Indorser at His Place of Business Sufficient. — Reed v. Spear, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 1007. Evidence of Authority Necessary. — Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30. 2. King v. Griggs, 82 Minn. 387 ; Kruger v. Persons, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 63s, affirming 45 N. Y. App. Div. 184. 3. Notice to Agent Acting under Implied Au- thority. — King v. Griggs, 82 Minn. 389, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 413. 414. 1. Notice to One Partner Notice to All. — Hays v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 101 Ky. 201. 4. Notice to Each of Two or More Joint Parties. — ■ Phipps v. Harding, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 468; Northrup v. Chambers, 90 Mo. App. 61. Note Signed in Blank Before Delivery — Notice to All of Signers Not Required to Sustain Action by Payee. — Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555. 6. No Particular Form of Language Necessary. — Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330 ; Counsell v. Livingston, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 582, affirmed 4 Ont. L. Rep. 340. Insufficient Noties. — The request by a bank, Pf one. who indorsed notes to it aftej maturity, I Supp S. of 1,-41 64 J for the return of the proceeds of the notes, which, pursuant to the original agreement, had been deposited in the bank to the indorser's credit, the deposit to remain as security for the payment of the notes until it could be ascer- tained that certain assets assigned to the bank by the makers would be sufficient,' but which, without any modification of the agreement, had been withdrawn from time to time by the in- dorser, cannot be treated as notice of the dis- honor of the notes by the makers. German- American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36. 7. Verbal Notice Sufficient. — Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330 ; C. C. Thompson, etc., Co. v. Appleby, 5 Kan. App. 680; Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379; Kelly v. Theiss, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 82, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 414; Reed v. Spear, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 1007; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18. Notice by Telephone — Sufficiency. — C. C. Thompson, etc., Co. v. Appleby, 5 Kan. App. 680. 417. 1. Description of Paper — General Bule. — Rudd v. Deposit Bank, 105 Ky. 448, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 417; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). Verbal Notice to Aid Written Notice Allowed, — Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 420. 2. Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330. 3. Dishonor Appearing by Beasonable Intend- ment Sufficient. — Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18 (under Negotiable Instru- ments Law). Sufficiency of Statement. — A notice which shows that the note was presented and payment thereof was refused, and that it was protested, is sufficient. Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18. Notice Setting Forth Dishonor, Protest, Demand, and Refusal, and that the holder looks to the person notified, is sufficient. Legg v. Vinal, 165 Mass. 555. 4, Demand Without Intimation of Dishonor. — Solomon v. Cohen, (Supm, Ct. App, f\) 94 ff, Y. §upp, 593, , 433-430 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 433. See note i. 433. (f) Name of Sender of Notice. — See note 6. 434. /. Mode of Giving Notice — (i) Service by Mai/-—(n) Where Parties Beside in Different Towns or Villages. *— See note 3. 435. (b) Notice by Mail to Person Residing Beyond Town limits. — See note 2, 430. In Some Jurisdictions, However, This Doctrine Has Been Denied. — See nptg I- (c) Where Parties Beside in Same Town or Village — General Rule, — See note 2. Effect of Receipt of Notiee in Dae Time, — See note I . Where Residence or Place of Business Cannot Be Found. — See note 5. Notice to Prior Parties Inclosed in Notice to Indorser. — See note 2. (d) What Amounts to a Sufficient Service by Mail. — See note 3. (2) Service by Delivery — (a) In General. — See note 4- (b) What Will Be a Sufficient Delivery. — See note 5. (3) Verbal Notice. — See note 2. 437. 438. 439. 430. 422. 1. Notiee that Paper Was " Protested." — See Rudd a. Deposit Bank, 105 Ky. 443. 423. 6. Signature of Sender. — Compare Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis ij8 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). 424, 3. Service by Mail Where Parties Re side in Different Town or Village. — Carter Odom, I-21 Ala. 162; Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529 ; Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92 ; J H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed,) 188. Under Negotiable Instruments Law. — " Where a party has added an address to his signature, notice of dishonor must be sent to that ad- dress ; but if he has not given such address then the notice must be sent as follows: (1) either to the post pffice nearest to his place of residence or to the post office where he is ac- customed to receive his mail ; or (2) if he live in -one place, and have his place of business in another, notice may be sent to either place ; or (3) if he is sojourning in another place, notice may be sent to the place where he is sojourn- ing." Philip, etc., Ebling Brewing Co. v. Rein- heimer, (Supm. Ct, Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 594; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App, Div. 546; Reed v. Spear, (Supm, Ct. App. Div.) 94 N- Y. Supp. 1007; Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18. 425, 2. Where Party Resides Outside Town, but Receives Mail there. — Carters. Odom, 121 Ala. 162; M, V. Monarch Co. v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 105 Ky. 430, 88 Am- St. Rep. 310. 426. 1. Under Tenn. Acts 1895, p. 402, ser- vice is allowed by mail in all cases. Chatta- nooga First Nat. Bank v, Reid, (Tenn. Ch, 1900) |8 S,- W. Rep. 1 124. 2. Mode of Sending Notice Where Parties Reside in the Same Town or Village. — Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162 ; C. C. Thompson, etc., Co. v. Appleby, 5 Kan. App. 680 ; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404 ; Lenhart v. Ramey, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 77. Compare Richmond Sec- ond Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18 (under Negotiable Instruments Law). Alabama Statute. — Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162. Massachusetts Statute — Notice by Mail Allowed. — Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379. Absence pf Indorser from Residence — Servi.ce by Mail Sufficient, — jlenhart v. Ramey, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 77. 427, 1, Effect of Receipt of Notiee in Due 642 Time. — Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404 ; Chap- man v. Ogden, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 355, affirmed 165 N. Y. 642. 5. Where Residence or Place of Business Cannot Be Found. — Lenhart v. Ramey, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 77 ; Hazlett v. Bragdon, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. S.81. Notice Mailed to Place Where Note Dated Suffi- cient under N. Y. Neg. Inst. L„ §§ 178, 179. — J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546. 428. 2. Notice to One Indorser Inclosed in Notice to Another by Whom It Is Redeposited. — Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751 ; Metropolitan Bank v. Engel, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 273. See also Henry v. Spengler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 362, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 153. 3. What Amounts to Sufficient Service by Mail. — Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379 ; German-American Bank v. Mills, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 312; State Bank v. Soloman, ( Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 976 ; Cook v. Forker, 193 Pa. St. 461, 74 Am. St. Rep. 699; Phoenix Brewing Co. v. Weiss, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 519; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; Siegel v. Hirsch, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398 ; Dime Deposit, etc., Bank v. Arnold, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 210, 7 Northam. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 281, 14 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 101. See also Siegel v. Hirsch, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398. The Word " Mailed," as applied to notice of protest, implies that the requisite postage was prepaid on the letter. Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Hailing of Notice. — Persons v. Kruger, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 187 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621. Presumption Rebuttable. — Phoenix Brewing Co. v. Weiss, 23 Pa. Super, Ct. 519. 429. 4. Service by Delivery Where Parties Reside in Different Town. — Richmond Second Nat. Bank v. Smith, 118 Wis. 18 (under Nego- tiable Instruments Law). 5. Service of Notice on Corporation Must Be on Officer or Agent. — American Exch. Nat. Bank v. American Hotel Victoria Co., 103 N. Y. APP- Div. 372. 430. 2. Verbal Notice.— See C. C. Thomp- son, etc., Co. v. Appleby, 5 Kan. App. 680; Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379. See also Kelly v. Theiss, 77 N. Y. App, Div. 81. Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 430 439 430. g. Time of Giving* Notice — (2) Notice on Day of Dishonor. — See note 4. 431. (3) Within What Time After Dishonor Notice May Be Given — (a) General Eule. — See note I . (b) Parties Residing in Same Place. — See note 2. 433. (o) Parties Residing in Different Places — aa. Where Notice Is Transmitted bv Mail. — See note i. 433. Where there Are Several Successive Hails on the Same Day. — — See note I. 434. bb. Transmission by Means Other than Mail. — See note I. ( d ) Notice to Successive Indorsers — Each Party Entitled to His Day Where Succes- sive Notices Are Given. — See note 3. 436. (f) Exclusion of Holidays from Computation. — See note 8. (g) Excuses for Delay — Inability to Find Party to Be Notified. — See note 12. 438. h. Place of Giving Notice — (2) Where Service Is by Mail — (a) General Rule. — See notes 3, 4. 439. Where Party Is Accustomed to Receive Mail from More Remote Office. — See notes 1, 2. (b) Notice to Party Having Two Places of Residence. — See note 5- 430. 4. Under the Tennessee Statute (Acts 1895, p. 402) notices of protest shall be placed in the post office on the same day, immediately after the protestation. Chattanooga First Nat. Bank v. Reid, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 1 124. 431. 1. Notice Within Reasonable Time After Dishonor. — Fielding v , Corry, (1898) 1 Q. B. 268,. 77 L. T. N. S. 453, 67 L. J. Q. B. 7, 46 W. R. 97; Carrington v. Odom, 124 Ala. 529; Pattillo v. Alexander, 96 Ga. 60 ; Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330; Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751; German- American Bank v. Atwater, 165 N. Y. 36; Mer- chants' Bank v. Brown, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 599 ; Deininger v. Miller, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; Fidelity L. & T. Co. v. Engleby, 99 Va. 168. When " Reasonable Time " a Question of Law and When a Question of Fact. — Pattillo v. Alex- ander, 96 Ga. 60 ; Merchants' Bank v. Brown, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 599. 2. Notice on Day Following Dishonor Required. — Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330 ; Rolla State Bank v. Pezoldt, 95 Mo. App. 404 ; Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751 ; Kelly v. Theiss, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 146 ; Dein- inger v. Miller, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 409; M. V. Monarch Co. v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 105 Ky. 430, 88 Am. St. Rep. 310. Under California Statute. — Meyer v . Foster, (Cal. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 402. Under Negotiable Instruments Law. — Solomon v. Cohen, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 94 N. Y- Supp. 502. Notice by Telegram. — Where a notice was, though by mistake, addressed to the wrong place, and, on the*day after it was sent, notice was telegraphed to the proper address, the notice was held sufficient. Fielding v. Corry, (1898) [ Q. B. 268, 77 L. T. N. S. 453, 67 L. J. Q. B. 7, 46 W. R. 97- 432. 1. Posting in Time for Mail of Day After Dishonor. — Fielding v. Corry, (1898) 1 Q. B. 268, 77 L. T. N. S. 453, 67 L. J. Q. B. 7, '46 W. R. 97; The Elmville, (1904) P. 319, 9' L. T. N. S. 151, 73 L. J. P. 104; Crosby v. Pat- ton, 76 Minn. 40; Brewster v. Shrader, (Supm. C*. Spec. T.) 26 Misc, (N, Y.) 480. 643 Burden of Proof. — Rolla State Bank v. Pez- oldt, 95 Mo. App. 404. 433. 1. First Mail of Day After Dishonor Re- quired. — Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751. 434. 1. Notice by Telegram Sufficient. — Fielding v. Corry, (1898) 1 Q. B. 268, 67 L. J. Q. B. 7, 77 L- T. N. S. 453, 46 W. R. 97. 3. Notice Between Successive Parties — Each Entitled to His Day. — Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 1 Marv. (Del.) 330; Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751 ; State v. Edmunds, 66 Mo. App. 47 ; University Press v. Williams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 188 ; Ashe v. Beasley, 6 N. Dak. 191 ; Wolf v. Jacobs, 3 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 160. 436. 8. Indorser Receiving Notice on Sat- urday need not serve notice on preceding in- dorser until following Sunday. Oakley v. Carr, 66 Neb. 751. 12. Inability to Find to Be Notified as Excuse for Delay. — Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92 ; University Press v. Williams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 190, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 436. 438. 3. Notice by Mail.— Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92 ; Philip, etc., Ebling Brewing Co. v. Reinheimer, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 594; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 188; Fonseca v. Hart- man, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. »3i- 4. Notice to Post Town at or near Place of Business. — Philip, etc., Ebling Brewing Co. v. Reinheimer, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 594 ; Fonseca v. Hartman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 131. 439. 1. Where Party Accustomed to Receive Mail at More Remote Office. — J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 188 ; Fonseca v. Hartman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 131 ; Siegel v. Hirsch, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398 Cunder Negotiable Instruments Law). 2. Notice to Nearer Office Sufficient. — Siegel v. Hirsch, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398 (under Nego- tiable Instruments Law). 5. Lowell Trust Co, v, Pratt, 183 Mass. 379, 439-449 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 439. Actual Temporary Abode Differing from Place of Domicil. — See note 6. 440. See note I. Place Visited for Temporary and Special Purpose. — See note 3. (d) Notice Sent to Wrong Place After Due Inquiry. — See note 5. 441. See note 1. 443. (f) Where Party Directs Notice to Be Sent to Certain Place. — See note 4. Place Specified in Conjunction with Indorsement. — See note 5. 443. (3) Place Immaterial Where Notice Is Received. — See note 5. 444. 5. Excuses for Want of Presentment, Protest, and Notice — a. DRAW- ING Without Having Effects in Hands of Drawee. — See note i. 445. Where Drawer Has Reasonable Expectation that Bill Will Be Honored. — See 'note 1. 447. b. Transfer of Invalid Paper. — See note i. c. Receiving Funds or Assets of Acceptor or Maker — Where by Agreement the Drawer or Indorser Assumes Primary Liability. — See note 2. Receiving Security Without Agreement to Assume Primary Liability. — See notes 3, 4. 448. Adequacy of Security Immaterial. — See note I. Security Consisting of Acceptor's or Maker's Entire Property. — See note 2. 449. d. Parties Occupying Double Relation — (i) Identity of Drawer and Drawee. — See note 1 . 439. 6. Notice Sent to Temporary Residence. — Philip, etc., Ebling Brewing Co. v. Reinheimer, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 594; Fon- seca v. Hartman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 131. 440. 1. Notice Sent to Permanent Domicil Sufficient. — Lowell Trust Co. v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 379. 3. Place Visited for Temporary or Special Pur- pose. — Chattanooga First Nat. Bank v. Reid, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 1124. 5. Reasonable Diligence Necessary in Inquiring for Residence. — Trease v. Haggin, 107 Iowa 458; Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92; Univer- sity Press v. Williams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 188; Fonseca v. Hartman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 131. 441. 1. Notice Sent to Wrong Place After Due Inquiry. — Burk v. Shreve, 2 N. J. L. J. 92 ; University Press v. Williams, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 188. Notice Negligently Misdirected Not Sufficient. — Howard v. Van Gieson, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 77- Information Received from City Directory. — Cuming v. Roderick, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 253 ; Cuming v. Roderick, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 620, affirmed 167 N. Y. 571. 442. 4. Where Party Directs Notice to Be Sent to Certain Place. — Siegel v. Hirsch, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 398 ; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. Mc- Kane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Ekcyc. of Law (2d ed.) 188; Fonseca v. Hartman, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 131. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, § 179, if the party to receive the notice has added an address to his signature, the notice must be- sent to the address so given or to the post office nearest his place of residence or to the post office where he is accustomed to receive his letters. J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKane, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 546. §, Tlw Speeded. Jn $9njun ; et4 M«$9<3 V. British Q°lumbja ?°i, §«{ also Krtonjr y, *5? 487 189 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV, 487. ice) What May Be Shown. — See notes I, 5, 6. 488. See notes i, 2. 6. Irregular Indorse™ — «. Liability Determined by Relation to the Instrument. — See note 3. b. The Relation Assumed by an Irregular Indorser — (1) In General -^ Circumstances Determining Character. — See note 4. Time of Indorsement. — See notes 5> 6. 489. See note 1. (2) Negotiable Instruments — (a) Indorsement Before Delivery — aa. Rela- tion Determined by Purpose of Indorsement. — See note 2. ib. Presumptive Purpose — (aa) To Assume Liability to Payee — Irregular Indorser Liable as Original Promisor. — See note 3. Lincoln, 66 111. App. 532 ; Halbach v. Trester, 102 Wis. 53.0. Parol Evidence Admissible to Show that Signa- ture Was Not Intended as Indorsement, but as Memorandum. — Hathaway v. Rogers, 112 Iowa 638. Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Show that Maker Acted as Agent, — Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 32. Parol Evidence of Agreement Releasing In- dorser from Liability Inadmissible. — Gumz v. Giegling, 108 Mich. 295. 486. 2. Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Charge Indorser as Maker. — Harvard Pub. Co. v. Benj a- rain, 84 Md. 333, 57 Am. St. Rep. 402. See also Tinker v, Catlin, 205 111. 108. 3. See also Kingman v. Cornell-Tebbetts Mach,, etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282; Torbit v. Heath, 1 1 Colo. App. 492. Compare Hoffman v. Habig- horst, 38 Oregon 261. 4. Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Charge In- dorser as Guarantor. — Schmitz v. Hawkeye Gold Min. Co., 8 S. Dak. 544. Compare Brown •j. Wilcox, 73 Conn. 100. 5. Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Show Indorse- ment Was Without Recourse. — Randle v. Davis Coal, etc., Co., 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 357; Smith v. Brabham, 48 S. Car. 337. Parol Agreement Relieving Indorser Without Recourse from Implied Warranty Admissible. — Carroll v. Nodine, 41 Oregon 412, 93 Am. St. Rep. 743. 6. Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Change Time of Payment. — See Citizens' Bank v. Jones, 121 Cal. 3°- Parol Evidence to Show that Waiver of Demand Was Unintentional Is Inadmissible. — Farmers' Exch. Bank v. Altura Gold Mill, etc., Co., 129 Cal. 263. 487. 1. Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Hansmann, 114 Iowa 49; Higgins v. Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130; Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, 11 N. Dak. 17, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 485-487; Sloan v. Gibbes, 56 S. Car. 489, 76 Am. St. Rep. 559. citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 487. See also Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246. 5. Parol Evidence to Show that Note Was Pro- cured by Fraud Admissible. — Banks v. Mc- Cosker. 82 Md. 518. 51 Am. St. Rep. 478. 6. Indorsement "for Collection" Cannot Be Shown to Be Unrestricted. — Smith v. Bayer, fOregon 1905) 79 Pae. Rep. 497. 488. 1. Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Hansmann, U4 Iowa 49; Higgins v, Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130; Faulkner v. Thomas, 48 W. Va. 148. See also Carlton v. White, 99 Ga. 384. 2. Egbert v. Hanson, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 596; Sloan v. Gibbes, 56 S. Car. 480, 76 Am. St. Rep. 559. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Agreement. — Sloan v. Gibbes, 56 S. Car. 480, 76 Am. St. Rep. 559- 3. Irregular Indorsement Creates No Definite Contract. — Keyser v. Warfield, (Md. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 189, citing 4 Am. and E«g. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 488. 4. Parkersburg First Nat. Bank v. Handley, 48 W. Va. 690. 5. Time of Indorsement — Presumption. — Dun- canson V. Kirby, 90 111. App. 15. It Is Immaterial Whether the Signature Is Ac- tually Indorsed upon the note before or after it comes to the possession of the payee, if it is part of the agreement that the note shall be so indorsed to be acceptable. Downey v. O'Keefe, 26 R. I. 571. N. Y. Neg. Inst. L., § 114, Applies Only to In- dorsers Before Delivery. — • Kohn v. Consolidated Butter, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 725. 6. Ohio. — Ewan v. Brooks- Waterfield Co., 55 Ohio St. 596, 60 Am. St. Rep. 719. 489. 1. Parol Evidence Admissible to Show Time of Indorsement. — Meyer v. Foster, (Cal. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 402, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 489 ; Court Valhalla, No. 16, etc., I/- Olson, 14 Colo. App. 243; Wrights. Denham, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 428, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 146; Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 970, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 488; Redden v. Lam- bert, 112 La. 740. 2. Carter v. Long, 125 Ala. 280; Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508 ; Citizens' Commercial, etc., Bank v. Piatt, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 694, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 743; Roanoke Grocery, etc., Co. v. Watkins, 41 W. Va. 789. Relation a Question of Fact. — Cadwallader v. Hirshfeld, 62 N. J. L. 747, 72 Am. St. Rep. 671. 3. Irregular Indorser Prima Facie Liable as Original Promisor — United States. — Phipps v. Harding, (C. C. A.) 70 Fed. Rep. 468. Arkansas. — Scanland v. Porter, 64 Ark. 470. Colorado. — National Bank of Commerce v. Graham, 10 Colo. App. 373 ; Byers v. Tritch, 12 Colo. App. 377. District of Columbia. — Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8 ; Randle v. Davis Coal, etc., Co., 15 Apd. Cas. (D. C.) 357, V 654 Vol. IV, AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 490 490. Irregular Indoraer Liable as Indorser. — See notes I, 2, 3, 4. Florida. — Camp v, Ocala First Nat. Bank, 44 Fla. 497. Louisiana. — Metropolitan Bank v. Muller, 50 La. Ann. 1278, 69 Am. St. Rep. 475. Maine. — Merchants' Trust, etc., Co. v. Jones, 95 Me. 335, 85 Am. St. Rep. 412. Maryland. — Thompson v. Young, 90 Md. 72; Keyser v. Warheld, (Md. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 189. Michigan. — Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 357; Dow Law Bank v. Godfrey, 126 Mich. 521, 86 Am. St. Rep. 559; Alderton v. Williams, 130 Mich. 626; McGraw v. Union Trust Co., (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 758, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 91. Missouri. — Kansas City First Nat. Bank v. Guardi.an Trust Co., 187 Mo. 494; Rossi v. Sc'ha- wacker, 66 Mo. App. 67 ; Pohle v. Dickmann, 67 Mo. App. 381 ; Malone v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 71 Mo. App. 1 ; Adams v. Huggins, 73 Mo. App. 140 ; Hardester v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624 ; Siemans, etc., Electric Co. v. Ten Broek, 97 Mo. App. 173 ; Kingman v. Cornell-Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282; Oexner v. Loehr, 106 Mo. App. 412; Herrick v. Edwards, 109 Mo. App. 633; Andrews v. Congar, 131 U. S. (Appendix) clxxxiii, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 90 (construing Missouri contract). Nebraska. — Drexel v. Pusey, 57 Neb. 30 ; Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 443. New Hampshire. — New York L. Ins. Co. v. McKellar, 68 N. H. 326; McFetrich v. Wood- row, 67 N. H. 174; Nashua Sav. Bank v. Sayles, 184 Mass. 520, 100 Am. St. Rep. 573 (construing New Hampshire contract). Ohio. — Ewan v. Brooks-Waterfield Co., 55 Ohio St. 596, 60 Am. St. Rep. 719; Sturges v. Williams, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 33, Cleve. L, Rec. 39, affirmed 9 Ohio St. 443, 75 Am. Dec. 473 ; Colver v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 278, n Ohio Cir. Ct. 604. Compare Bartlett v, Jpnes, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 292, r Cleve. L. Rep. 219. Rhode Island. — McLean v. Bryer, 24 R. I. 599 ; Atwood v. Lester, 20 R. I. 660 ; Downey v, O'Keefe, 26 R. I. 571. (It is otherwise in this state, however, in the case of instruments made subsequent to the adoption of the Nego- tiable Instruments Law,) South Carolina. — 'Johnston v. McDonald, 41 S. Car. 81 ; Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Alewine, 48 S. Car, 308 ; McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 433, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681. Tennessee. — National Exch. Bank v. Cum- berland Lumber Co., 100 Tenn. 479 ; Logan v. Ogden, 101 Tenn. 392; Wright, v. Knoxville Livery, etc., Co., (Tenn. Cb. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 677. Texas- — Kennon v. Bailey, 15 Tex, Civ. App. 28 ; Rice v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 1023; Beissner v. Weekes, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 14 ; Hollimon v. Karger, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 558. Washington. — Donohoe Kelly Banking Co. V, Puget Sound Sav.' Bank, 13 Wash. 407, %z Am- St. Rep. 57. Liability jjot Affected by Waiver of Protest. — Camp v. Ocala First Nat, Bank, 44 Fla. 497- 655 Liability Joint and Several, — Schultz v. How- ard, 63 Minn. 196, 56 Am. St. Rep. 470. Under the negotiable Instruments Law, the lia- bility of an irregular indorser is that of an indorser, and he is liable as such to the payee and to all subsequent parties, if the instru- ment is payable to a third person. Corn v. Levy, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 48; Metropolitan Bank v. Engel, 66 JN. Y. App, Div. 273. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act (Laws 1897, c, .612, § 114) it is presumed that an irregular indorser indorsed the instrument with the intention of becoming liable to the payee, the obligation becoming complete after delivery. Kohn v. Consolidated Butter, etc., Co., (Supm, Ct. Tr. T,) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 725. Irregular Indorsement Waiving Protest and 'Guaranteeing Payment does not affect indorsees liability as maker. Atwood v, Lester, 20 R. I. 660. Irregular Indorsers Liable as Joint Sureties as Between Themselves. — Logan v. Ogden, 1 1 Tenn. 392. The Word " Indorser " After a Signature renders the signer liable as either maker or guarantor, his contract being the equivalent of making a ; new note, Herrick v. Edwards, 106 Mo. App. 490. 1. Irregular Indorser Prima Facie Liable as Indorser — Alabama. — Alabama Nat. Bank v. Rivers, 116 Ala. 1, 67 Am. St. Rep. 95; Carter v. Long, 125 Ala. 280; Carter v. Odom, 121 Ala. 162; Carringtpn v, Odom, 124 Ala. 539- 2. England. — See also Carrique v. Beaty, 24 Ont, App, 302, reversing 28 Ont. 175. The English Bills of Exchange Act does not ren- der liable as an indorser one who writes his name upon a bill payable to the drawer before the bill has been indorsed by the drawer. Jenkins v. Coomber, (1898) 2 Q, B. 168. 3. Canada, — Robirison v. Mann, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 484 ; Fr.aser v. McLepd, 2 N. W. Ter. 154. Compare Robinson v. Mann, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 63. It seems that one indorsing a note before it has been indorsed by the payee assumes no liability thereon, as the note is not complete. Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Perrarn, 31 Ont. 116. 4. California. — O'Conor v. Clarke, (Cal. 1896) 44 Pac. Rep. 482; Loustalot v. Calkins, 120 Cal, 688. Connecticut, ^- Oley v. Miller, 74 Conn. 304; Smith v. Myers, 107 III. App. 410, judgment affirmed 207 111. 126 (construing Connecticut contract). Massachusetts, -r- Brooks v. Stackpole, 168 Mass. 537; National Bank of Republic v. Delano, 185 Mass. 424; Cherry v. Sprague, (Mass. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 456 ; Lewis v, Monaban, 173 Mass. 122; New York L. Ins. Co. -u. McKellar, 68 N. H. 326 (construing a Massachusetts contract). See also Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488. Under the Negotiable Instruments Lara an irregular indorser of a note payable to the order of a third person is liable as an indorser to the payee and all subsequent parties. Leon- ard v. Draper, (Mass. 1995) 73 N. E. Rep. 644; 491-493 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 491. Irregular Indorser Liable as a Guarantor. — See note I. 493. (it) To Assume No Liatilily to Payee. — See notes 1 , 2. cc. Admissibility of Extraneous Evidence to Show True Purpose — When Liability to Payee Presumed. — See notes 3, 4. Thorpe v. White, (Mass. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 592- 491. 1. Irregular Indorser Prima Facie Lia- ble as a Guarantor. — Tinker v. Catlin, 205 111. 108; Mexican Asphalt Paving Co. v. Love, 73 111. App. 250 ; Duncanson v. Kirby, 90 111. App. 15; Pfirshing v. Heitner, 91 111. App. 407; Griffiths v. Herzog, 100 111. App. 380; Tinker v. Catlin, 102 111. App. 264, affirmed 205 111. 108; Andrews v. Congar, 131 U. S. (Appendix) clxxxiii, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 90 (construing Illinois decisions) ; Price v. Lonn, 31 Ind. App. 379 (construing Illinois statute). Under Ky. Stat., § 481, every person who signs his name upon the back of a promissory note is liable as an assignor unless a different pur- pose is expressed in writing. American Nat. Bank v. Smallhouse, 113 Ky. 147. Irregular Indorsement of Note Payable to Maker's Order. — Yates v. Goodwin, 96 Me. 90 ; Benedict v. Berger, 64 111. App. 173; Hately v. Pike, 162 111. 241, S3 Am. St. Rep. 304; Tinker v. Catlin, 205 111. 108; Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 443; Harnett v. Holdrege, (Neb. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 277. Virginia and West Virginia. — Roanoke Gro- cery, etc., Co. ■v. Watkins, 41 WV Va. 789 ; Miller v. Clendenin, 42 W. Va. 416 ; Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 970. 492. 1. Irregular Indorser Prima Facie Lia- ble as Second Indorser — Iowa. — Lyon v. Sioux City First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 120 (construing Iowa statute), New York. — Nagel v. Lutz, 41 N. Ys App. Div. 193; Howard v. Van Gieson, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 77 ; Port Jefferson Bank v. Darling, gi Hun (N. Y.) 236; Kohn v. Consolidated Butter, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 725; Davis v. Bly, 164 N. Y. 527, 79 Am. St. Rep. 670, affirming 32 N. Y. App. Div. 124; Davis v. Bly, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 124, affirmed 164 N. Y. 527 ; Oneida County Bank v. Lewis, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 55 N. Y. Supp. 1144; Wylie v. Cotter, 170 Mass. 356, 64 Am. St. Rep. 305 (construing New York statute). See also Smith v. Weston, 159 N. Y. 194; Mc- Moran o. Lange, 25 N. Y. App. Div. 1 1 ; Oneida County Bank v. Lewis, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 34. The rule is now otherwise in this state under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Corn v. Levy, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 48. Pennsylvania. — ■ Moran v. Bates, 16 Lane. L. Rev. 148. Georgia. — Saussy v. Weeks, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 809; See also Sibley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 97 Ga. 126 ; Pirkle v. Cham- blee, 109 Ga. 32. Where a promissory note is executed by one person, and another, who is not the payee, and whose indorsement is neither essential nor proper to the transmission of title to the note, signs his name upon the back of it, he be- comes liable thereon either as joint principal or as surety, but does not, by thus signing his name, enter into such a contract of indorse- ment aa will ?wt hjm off from . setting up against the payee the defense that the note was founded upon an illegal consideration, and therefore void. Benson v. Dublin Ware- house Co., 99 Ga. 303. A promissory note executed by two persons, one signing at the bottom of the note, and the other upon the back thereof, the latter not being the payee, and which is written " I prom- ise to pay," is a joint and several note; and the person whose name appears upon the back of the note is, according to the facts connected with his undertaking, liable thereon either in / the capacity of a co-principal or in that of a surety. Booth v. Huff, 116 Ga. 8, 94 Am. St. Rep. 98. New Jersey. — Cadwallader v. Hirshf eld, 62 N. J. L. 747, 72 Am. St. Rep. 671 ; Elliott v. Moreland, 69 N. J. L. 216 ; Lowry v. Tivy, 70 N. J. L. 457. (It is otherwise, however, as to contracts entered into since the adoption of the Negotiable Instruments Law.) Burden of Proving Nature of Contract on Plain- tiff. — Lowry v. Tivy, 70 N. J. L. 457. 2. N. Y. Neg. Inst. L., § 114 — Burden of Prov- ing Liability of Payee as First Indorser on Other Indorsers. — Kohn v. Consolidated Butter, etc., Co.) (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 725. 3. Rule as to Admissibility of Evidence. — Court Valhalla, No.. 16, etc., v. Olson, 14 Colo. App. 243; Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508; Elliott v. Moreland, 69 N. J. L. 216; Kohn v. Consolidated Butter, etc., Co., (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 7 26,- citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 492 ; Ewan v. Brooks-Waterfield Co., 55 Ohio St. 596, 60 Am. St. Rep. 719: Roanoke Grocery, etc., Co. v. Watkins, 41 W. Va. 789 ; Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 970. 4. Admissibility of Evidence to Show True Rela- tion — Alabama. — Carter v. Long, 125 Ala. 280. Arkansas. — See Scanland v. Porter, 64 Ark. 470. District of Columbia. — Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 8. Georgia. — Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508; Saussy v. Weeks, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 809. Illinois. — Pfirshing v. Heitner, 91 111. App. 407; Griffiths v. Herzog, 100 111. App. 380; Tinker v. Catlin, 102 111. App. 264, affirmed 205 111. 108. Indiana. — Price v. Lonn, 31 Ind. App. 379. Maryland. — Keyser v. Warfield, (Md. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 189. Michigan. — Barger v. Farnham, 130 Mich. 487. Mississippi. — Richardson v. Foster, 73 Miss. 12, 55 Am. St. Rep. 483. Missouri. — Kansas City First Nat. Bank v. Guardian Trust Co., 187 Mo. 494; Hardester v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624 ; Peoples Bank v. Hans- brough, 89 Mo. App. 252 : Malone v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 71 Mo. App. 1 : Siemans, etc., Electric Co. v. Ten Broek, 97 Mo. App. 173; Kingman v. Cornell -Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282; Oexner v. Loehr, 106 Mo. App, 412; Her? rick V, Edwardf, ,96 M.q, App, $j|, 6$6 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 493-495 493. When No Liability to Payee Is Presumed. — See notes 3, 4, 5. 494. See note 1. (b) Indorsement After Delivery. — See note 2. (3) Nonnegotiable Instruments. — See notes 3, 4. 495. VIII. Discharge and Payment— 1. Nature and Methods of Discharge. — See notes 2, 4. 2. Payment — b. Time of Payment — Payment in Due course. — See note 7. Payment Before Maturity. — See notes 8, 9. Nebraska. — Drexel v. Pusey, 57 Neb. 30. New Jersey. — Cadwallader v. Hirshield, 62 N. J. L. 747, 72 Am. St. Rep. 671 ; Elliott v. Moreland, 69 N. J. L. 216. North Carolina. — Salisbury First Nat. Bank v. Swink, 129 N. Car. 255. Ohio. — Wright v. Denham, 4 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 428, 2 Cleve. L. Rep. 146 ; Ewan v. Brooks-Waterfield Co., 55 Ohio St. 596, 60 Am. St. Rep. 719. South Carolina. — Carolina Sav. Bank v. Florence Tobacco Co., 45 S. Car. 373. Tennessee. — - Wright v. Knoxville Livery, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 677. Texas. — Hollimon v. Karger, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 558. Washington. — Donohoe Kelly Banking Co." v. Puget Sound Sav. Bank, 13 Wash. 407, 52 Am. St. Rep. 57. West Virginia. — Roanoke Grocery, etc., Co. v. Watkihs, 41 W. Va. 789; Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 970; Parkersburg First Nat. Bank v. Handley, 48 W. Va. 690. Parol Evidence Not Admissible Where Holder Is Bona Fide Purchaser. — Kingman v. Cornell- Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show True Relation. ■ — Drexel v. Pusey, 57 Neb. 30. Evidence Insufficient to Show Different Belation. — Kansas City First Nat. Bank v. Guardian Trust Co., 187 Mo. 494. 493. 3. Indorsement for Purpose of Giving Maker Credit with Payee. — Port Jefferson Bank v. Darling, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 236; Cuming v. Roderick, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 339; Nagel v. Lutz, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 193; Howard v. Van Gieson, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 77 ; Moynihan v. McKeon, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 343 ; Davis v. Bly, 164 N. Y. 527, 79 Am. St. Rep. 670, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 124. See also McMoran v. Lange, 25 N. Y. App. Div. 11. 4. Admissibility of Evidence to Show liability to Payee — As First Indorser. — Port Jefferson Bank v. Darling, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 236; Cum- ing v. Roderick, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 339; Nagel v. Lutz, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 193 ; Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Butler, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 16 Misc. (N. Y.) 566; Davis v. Bly, 164 N. Y. 527, 79 Am. St. Rep. 670, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 124. Pennsylvania. — See Cooke v . Addicks, 6 Pa. Suner. Ct. 115. 5. Evidence Inadmissible to Rebut liability as Indorser. — See also Port Jefferson Bank v. Darling, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 236. 494. 1. In New Jersey. — See Cooke v. Ad- dicks, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 115 (construing a New Jersey contract). 2. Irregular Indorsement After Delivery. — Ridley v. Hightower, 112 Ga. 476; Adams v. Huggins, 73 Mo. App. 140; Adams v. Huggins, 1 Supp. E. of L. — 42 78 Mo. App. 219 ; Corbyn v. Brokmeyer, 84 Mo. App. 649 ; Elliott v. Moreland, 69 N. J. L. 216; Roanoke Grocery, etc., Milling Co. v. Watkins, 41 W. Va. 789. See also Smucker v . Wright, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 360 ; Hollimon v. Karger, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 558. In Kansas it seems that an irregular indorser is considered an ordinary indorser. In such cases, however, if it be alleged that the plaintiff acquired the note by purchase before maturity from the payee, and that such person whose signature appears after that of the payee on the back of the note is in fact a joint maker thereof, parol evidence is admissible to prove the nature and extent of the contract entered into by such apparent indorser. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Atkinson, 62 Kan. 775. Indorsement After Delivery in Pursuance of a Prior Agreement. — Downey v. O'Keefe, 26 R. I 57'- 3. Irregular Indorsers — Nonnegotiable Instru- ments. — Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 970; Saussy v. Weeks, (Ga. 1905) 49 S. E. Rep. 809. 4. Rossi v. Schawacker, 66 Mo. App. 67. 495. 2. Connecticut Trust, etc., Co. v. Trunbo, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 216. Bill Not Revoked by Death of Drawer. — Trunk- field v. Proctor, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 326. 4. Demand Note Discharged by Transfer to Maker under Negotiable Instruments Law. — Schwartzman v. Post, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 474, 475- Under the English Bills of Exchange Act which enacts that when the acceptor of a bill is or becomes the holder of it at or after its maturity, in his own right, the bill is dis- charged, the expression " in his own right " is not used in contradistinction to a right in a representative capacity, but indicates a right rot subject to that of another person, and good against all the world. Nash v. De Freville, (1900) 2 Q. B. 72, 69 L. J. Q. B. 484, 82 L. T. N- S. 642, 48 W. R. 434- 7. Fogg v. School Dist, 75 Mo. App. 159. Payment by Surety Presumed to Have Been at Maturity. — Heaton v. Ainley, 108 Iowa 112. Lost Paper. — Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Pool, 133 Mich. 323. Paper Not Payable, as a Matter of Right, Before Maturity. — Smith v. Merchants', etc., Bank, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 176, 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 199. 8. Fogg v. School Dist., 75 Mo. App. 159. Holder May Decline Payment Tendered Before Maturity. — Vanier v. Kent, n Quebec K. B. 373- 9. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 632, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; Cowing v. Cloud, 16 Colo. App. 326; Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 372; Martina v. Muhlke, 186 111. 327; Fogg v. School Dist., 75 657 406 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 496. Instrument Should Be Taken Up. — See note I. c To Whom Payment Must Be Made. — See note 2. Mo. App. 1 59 ; City Nat. Bank v. Goodloe- McClelland Commission Co., 93 Mo. App. 123 ; Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 645. Under Ky. Stat., § 483, and Civ. Code, § 19, pay- ment made to the payee by the maker, before ma- turity and before the transfer of the note, is a defense to an action by a bona fide pur- chaser before maturity, other than a banker, to whom the payee has sold the note. Gaines v. Deposit Bank, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 438. 496. 1. Importance of Taking Up Instrument. — Cowing v. Cloud, 16 Colo. App. 326; Mar- tina v. Muhlke, 186 111. 327 ; City Nat. Bank v. Goodloe-McClelland Commission Co., 93 Mo. App. 123 ; Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 64s; Allen v. Johnson, n Ohio Cir. Dec. 42. See also Finlay v. Marshall, (Miss. 1891) 20 So. Rep. 864; Harding v. Jenkins, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 25' Misc. (N. Y.) 398. 2. Payment Must Be Made to Holder or Agent — England. — Nash v. De Freville, 69 L. J. Q. B. 484, (1900) 2 Q. B. 72, 82 L. T. N. S. 642, 48 W. R. 434- Alabama. — Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52. Arkansas. — State Nat. Bank v. Hyatt, (Ark. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1002. Colorado. — Campbell v. Equitable Securities Co., 17 Colo. App. 417. Georgia. — University Bank v. Tuck, 1 1 Ga. 104; Tuck v. National Bank, 108 Ga. 446, 75 Am. St. Rep. 69; Loughridge v, Wilson, 102 Ga. 524. See also Johnson v. Cobb, 100 Ga. 139- Illinois. — Fortune v. Stockton, 182 111. 454, affirming 82 111. App. 272 ; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 111. App. 100, affirmed 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160 ; McNamara v. Clark, 85 111. App. 439; Hass v. Lobstein, 108 111. App. 217. Indiana. — Porter v. Roseman, (Ind. 1905) 74 N. E. Rep. 1 105. Indian Territory. — Barton v. Ferguson, 1 Indian Ter. 263. Kansas. — Fox v. Harrison Nat. Bank, 6 Kan. App. 682 ; Hall v. Smith, 3 Kan. App. 685 ; Walter v. Logan, 63 Kan. 193 ; Doe v. Callow, 64 Kan. 886, 67 Pac. Rep. 824; Fowle v. Outcalt, 64 Kan. 352. Kentucky. — Cassidy v. Martin Bank, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 528. Maine. — Hunt v. Bessey, 96 Me. 429. Maryland. — Barroll v. Forman, 88 Md. 188. Michigan. — Texarkana Nat. Bank v. Still- well, 121 Mich. 154. See also Barnett v. Salo- man, 118 Mich. 460. Minnesota. — Dwight v. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78. Missouri. — White v. Kehlor, 85 Mo. App. 557 ; Jenks v. Glenn, 86 Mo. App. 329 ; City Nat. Bank v. Goodloe-McClelland Commission Co., 93 Mo. App. 123 ; Maguire v. Donovan, 108 Mo. App. 511. Nebraska. — • Boyer v. Richardson, 52 Neb. 156; Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 645; Garnett v. Meyers, 65 Neb. 280 ; Northern Counties Invest. Trust v. Edgar, 65 Neb. 301 ; Campbell v. O'Connor, 55 Neb. 638 ; Stuart v. Stone- braker, 63 Neb. 554 ; Bradbury v. Kinney, 63 Neb, 754 ; Coddington Sav. Bank v. Anderson, 64 Neb. 205 ; Lay v. Honey, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. 658 W. Rep. 998; Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Haskell, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 233; Boyd v . Pape, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 646 ; Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 291, 101 Am. St. Rep. 620 ; Thompson v. Buehler, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 854; Chapman v. Wagner, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 412. New York. — Buffalo Third Nat. Bank v. Bowman-Spring, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 66. North Dakota. — Winona Second Nat. Bank *■. Spottswood, 10 N. Dak. 114; Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, n N. Dak. 10, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693 ; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35. Ohio. — Smith v. Merchants', etc., Bank, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 176, 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 199. Texas. — Renfro v. Waco, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 766; Eastham o. Patty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 473 ; Cunningham v. Mc- Donald, (Tex. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 372. Wisconsin. — Bartel v. Brown, 104 Wis. 493 ; Jackson County Bank v. Parsons, 112 Wis. 265 ; Loizeaux v. Fremder, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 423. The Maker Is Chargeable with Notice of a Transfer of the paper, and his liability to the holder is not changed by payment made to the original payee. Stolzman v. Wyman, 8 N. Dak. 108 ; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35. The Fact that a Negotiable Note Is Made Payable at a Particular Office does not make the party in charge of the office the agent of the holder to receive payment unless the note is actually in possession of the party. Dwight v. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78 ; McNamara v. Clark, 85 111. A PP- 439 ; White v. Kehlor, 85 Mo. App. 557 ; Stolzman v. Wyman, 8 N. Dak. 108 ; Corey v. Hunter, 10 N. Dak. 5 ; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35 ; Bartel v. Brown, 104 Wis. 493. Authority to Collect Interest does not carry with it an implied agency to collect the prin- cipal. Walsh v. Peterson, 59 Neb. 645. Burden of Proving Authority of Agent on Defendant. ■ — University Bank v. Tuck, 1 1 Ga. 104; Fox v. Harrison Nat. Bank, 6 Kan. App. 682; Stuart v. Asher, 15 Colo. App. 403 ; Higley v. Dennis, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 88 S. W. Rep. 400. Presumption of Agency from Possession of Paper. — Dwight v. Lenz, 75 Minn. 78. Payment of Collateral Note to Unauthorized Person does not release the maker of the note to secure which the collateral was given, even though the collateral was deposited with the person by authority of the payee. St. Paul, etc., Grain Co. v. Rudd, 102 Iowa 748. Payment to Agent Sufficient Though Maker Did Not Enow of His Authority. — Bonner v. Lisenby, 86 Mo. App. 666. Though the Payment Is Made to an Unauthor- ized Person it is sufficient if it eventually reaches one authorized to receive it. Stuart v. Stone- braker, 63 Neb. 554; Winona Second Nat. Bank v. Spottswood, 10 N. Dak. 114. Payment to the Pledgor of Negotiable Paper. — University Bank v. Tuck, 101 Ga. 104. Payment to Pledgor After Notice of Pledgee'i Rights.— Prim v . Glass, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 57. Payment May Be Made to the Pledgor where the Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 497-503 497. Paper Payable to Bearer or Indorsed in Blank, — See note 3. d. By Whom Payment Must Be Made — (2) Payment by Party Ultimately Liable. — See notes 4, 5. r Where there Are Several Joint Acceptors or Makers. — See note 6. 498. (3) Payment by a Drawer or Indorser. — See notes 2, 3. 499. /. Right to Reissue Paper After Payment — when Payment Has Been Made at Maturity. — See note 6. 500. See note 2. Before Maturity. — See note 3. 501. See note 1. g. Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake. — See note 6. 503. See notes i, 2. note has been returned by the pledgee. Zim- mer v. Chew, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 504. Payment to Pledgee. — Fox v. Harrison Nat. Bank, 6 Kan. App. 682. Nonnegotiable Paper. — Fox v. Cipra, 5 Kan. App. 312; Chapman v. Steiner, 5 Kan. App. 326 ; Warren v. Gruwell, 5 Kan. App. 523 ; Gilbert v. Nelson, 5 Kan. App. 528 ; Sny- der v. Moon, 5 Kan. App. 447 ; Bliss v. Young, 7 Kan. App. 728 ; Wright v. Shimek, 8 Kan. App. 350; Garnett v. Myers, (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 803; Swan v. Craig, (Neb. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 471 ; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. Dak. 35 ; Lee v. Sallada, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 98; Sykes v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 69 Kan. 134. Nonnegotiable Paper — Burden of Proving Notice of Transfer on Plaintiff. — Snyder v. Moon, 5 Kan. App. 447. Payment to Third Person by Direction of Holder Sufficient. — Matter of Baker, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 2ii, affirmed 172 N. Y. 617. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Authority. — Jones v. Dulick, 8 Kan. App. 855, 55 Pac. Rep. 522. Duty of Maker to Demand Production of Note. — Fowle v. Outcalt, 64 Kan. 352. When Payment to Surviving Joint Owner Is Sufficient. — Perry v. Perry, 98 Ky. 242. Payment According to Owner's Direction, — One may retain title to a negotiable note, and order its contents to be paid to another. Down- ing v. Wheeler, 93 Me. 570. An Indorsement for Collection does not prevent the indorser from demanding and receiving payment himself. Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Pool, 133 Mich. 323. 497. 3. Payment to Bearer. — Drinkall v . Movius State Bank, 11 N. Dak. 10, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693. Payment on Forged Indorsement. — Beattie v. National Bank, 69 111. App. 632, affirmed 174 111. 571, 66 Am. St. Rep. 318. 4. Stevenson v. Short, 52 La. Ann. 967 ; Williams v. Gerber, 75 Mo. App. 18; Cussen v. Brandt, 97 Va. r, 75 Am. St. Rep. 762. Payment of Joint Obligation. — Where a joint obligation is bought by a firm, a member of which is one of the obligors, the note is extin- guished. Logan County Nat. Bank v. Barclay, 104 Ky. 97. 5. The Giving of a Judgment or Other Security by the Maker or a prior indorser does not, how- ever, discharge a subsequent indorser. Lock Haven First Nat. Bank v. Peltz, 176 Pa. St. 5i3, 53 Am. St. Rep. 686. 6. See also Williams v. Gerber, 75 Mo. App. 18. 49§. 2. March v. Barnet, (Cal. 1897) 51 Pac. Rep. 20 ; State o. Hughes, 19 Ind. App. 266; Oneida County Bank v. Lewis, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 55 N. Y. Supp. 1144; Twelfth Ward Bank v. Brooks, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 220 (under Negotiable Instruments Law) ; Van Winkle Gin, etc., Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 89 Tex. 147 ; Pegg v. Howlett, 28 Ont. 473. See also McGowan v. Hover, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 138. Failure to Protest Does Not Prevent Recovery by Indorser Paying Note, — McGowan v. Hover, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 138. 3, Payment Where Payment Has Not Been Pro- tested. — Where no proof of a protest or the waiver of protest is made, the indorser of a promissory note who pays cannot recover, and he must be held to have paid without any obligation to do so ; and the payment must be attributed to his own generosity. Savaria v. Paquette, 20 Quebec Super. Ct. 314. 499. 6. Root u. Fast, 58 Neb. 498 ; Vanier v. Kent, 11 Quebec K. B. 373. Effect of Payment by Third Person. — McDon- nell v. Burns, (C. C. A.) 83 Fed. Rep. 866. 500. 2. Reissue After Payment by Indorser at Maturity. — See also Kelly v. Staed, 136 Mo. 430, 58 Am. St. Rep. 648. 3. Holton v. Hubbard, 49 La. Ann. 715; Fogg v. School Dist., 75 Mo. App. 159; Vanier v. Kent, 11 Quebec K. B. 373, affirming 20 Quebec Super. Ct. 545. 501. 1. Acceptor or Maker Paying Before Maturity May Reissue. — Sater v. Hunt, 66 Mo. App. 527. 6. Fitts v. Gilmore, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 681. 502. 1. Grotian v. Guaranty Trust Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 566, affirmed 114 Fed. Rep. 433, 52 C. C. A. 235 ; La Fayette v. Merchants' Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 700. Forged Indorsement — Recovery by Drawee. — Citizens' Nat. Bank v. City Nat Bank, 11 1 Iowa 216, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 502 ; La Fayette v. Merchants Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 700. Forgery of Drawer's Name. — Indian Territory Bank v. Buchanan County First Nat. Bank, 109 Mo. App. 665. See also LaFayette v. Mer- chants Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 700; Woods v. Colony Bank, 114 Ga. 683. Same — Drawee Supposed to Know Drawer's Signature. — See also La Fayette v. Merchants' Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 700. 2. Compare Boyer v. Richardson, 52 Neb, 156. 659 509 505 BILLS OF EXCHANGE Vol. IV. 502. Laches After Discovery of Mistake. — See note 3. 503. 3. Novation, Satisfaction, and Release. — See note 4. 4. Cancellation or Destruction. — See notes 6, 7. 504. The Liability of Any Party to the Instrument. — See note 2. Cancellation by Mistake. — See note 3. 6. Discharge by Operation of law — Merger — The Discharge in Bankruptcy Insolvency. — See note 1 1. 505. 7. Discharge of Indorsers as Sureties — How Far indorse™ Deemed Sureties. - See note 3. Discharge of Indorser by Time Given to Antecedent Party. — See notes 6, 7, 8. 502. 3. Recovery Allowed in Absence of Preju- dice to Other Party by Delay. — La Fayette v. Merchants Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W.Rep. 700. 503. 4. Macon Sash, etc., Co. v. Gunn, no Ga. 401. Actual Release for Consideration Essential. — Hale v. Grogan, 99 Ky. 170. Under the English Sills of Exchange Act a parol renunciation and delivery of the note to a devisee of the maker is not sufficient. Edwards v. Walters, (1896) 2 Ch. 157, 65 L. J. Ch. 557, 74 L. T. N. S. 396, 44 W. R. 547- Renunciation Accompanied by Surrender under Negotiable Instruments Law. — Leask v. Dew, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 529. 6. Consideration Is Essential to support an agreement to cancel notes held by the payee. Templeton v. Butler, ri7 Wis. 45s. 7. Riddle v. Russell, 108 Iowa 591 ; Wetter- mark v. Burton, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 511, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 503. Agreement to Cancel Acceptance — Sufficiency of Evidence. — Dubuque First Nat. Bank v. Booth, 102 Iowa 333. Surrender of Note by Holder to Maker.— See Cunningham z r . Hurd, 109 Iowa 34. Marking the Word " Paid " on the Note is in- effectual to constitute a discharge and cancella- tion of the note where it is retained by the payee. Wittman v. Pickens, (Colo. 1905) 81 Pac. Rep. 299. 504. Z. Cancellation of Acceptor's Name. — See Cooper Grocery Co. v. Moore, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 283. 3. Milo Bank v. Vertz, 96 Iowa 725. See also Cooper Grocery Co. v. Moore, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 283 ; Ashburn v. Evans, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 242. Burden of Proving Mistake. — Riddle v. Rus- sell, 108 Iowa 591. Stamping Note "Paid" Does Not Discharge Maker when done through mistake. Grogan v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 276. 11. Indorser Not Discharged by failure of holder to prove claim against bankrupt maker in manner prescribed by Massachusetts Bank- ruptcy Act 1898, § 57. National Bank v. Saw- yer. 177 Mass. 490, 83 Am. St. Rep. 292. 505. 3. An indorser is released by the vote of the holder, at a meeting of creditors, to dis- charge the maker, even though the indorser had waived demand, notice, and protest. Union Nat. Bank v. Grant, 48 La. Ann. 18. 6. Time Given to Prior Party Discharges In- dorsers — Alabama. — Elyton Co. v. Hood, 121 Ala. 373. California. — Daneri v. Gazzola, 139 Cal. 416. Colorado. — Fisher v. Denver Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. 373 ; Drescher v. Fulham, 1 1 Colo. App. 62. District of Columbia. — Reed v. Tierney, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 165 ; Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. Georgia. — Tanner v. Gude, 100 Ga. 157. Illinois. — Gaar v. Hulse, 90 111. App. 548. Indiana. — Brannon v. Irons, 19 Ind. App. 305; Schieber v. Traudt, 19 Ind. App. 349. Kansas. — Wellington Nat. Bank v. Thomson, 9 Kan. App. 667; Horton Bank v. Brooks, 10 Kan. App. 576, 62 Pac. Rep. 675. Kentucky. — • Schuff v. Germania Safety-Vault, etc., Co., (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 229. Minnesota. — St. Paul Trust Co. v. St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, 64 Minn. 439. Missouri. — Johnson v. Franklin Bank, 173 Mo. 171 ; Marquardt Sav. Bank v. Freund, 80 Mo. App. 657 ; Smith v. Warren, 88 Mo. App. 285; Laumeier v. Hallock, 103 Mo. App. 116; Westbay v. 6tone, (Mo. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 34- New York. — Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757- Pennsylvania. — Bishop's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 85- South Dakota. — Niblack v. Champeny, 10 S. Dak. 165. Tennessee. — -Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875 ; Stone's River Nat. Bank v. Walter, 104 Tenn. n. Texas. — Robson v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 83 ; Guerguin v. Boone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903; yy S. W. Rep. 630. Virginia. — State Sav. Bank v. Baker, 93 Va. 510. Wisconsin. — Black River Falls First Nat. Bank v. Jones, 92 Wis. 36. Wyoming. — Lawrence v. Thorn, 9 Wyo. 414. Canada. — Le Jeune v. Sparrow, 1 N. W. Ter. 384. Sufficiency of Agreement to Discharge Sureties a Question of Fact. — Roberson v. Blevins, 57 Kan. 50. The Fact that One of Two Notes Secured by the Same Collateral Is Extended does not release one who is surety on both notes, but he is only released from the extended note. Owings v. McKenzie, 133 Mo. 323. Indemnified Surety Not Discharged. — Hardes- ter v. Tate, 85 Mo. App. 624. Extension of Time with Consent of Sureties Not a Release. — Milan First Nat. Bank v. Wells, 98 Mo. App. 573. Indorser Not Discharged by Stipulation Extend- ing Time to Answer. — German-American Bank v. Niagara Cycle Fittings Co., 13 N. Y. App. Div. 450. 660 Vol. IV. AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 506 506. See notes i, 2, 3, 4, 5. An Agreement Between the Maker and Holder that the Surety Shall Not Be Released is not bind- ing where the surety is not a party to the agreement and does not consent thereto. Rob- son v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 686. Sufficiency of Evidence. — Evidence that notes deposited as collateral' security for the payment of other notes were from time to time renewed, interest collected thereon in advance, and the time of payment extended, will not, of itself, support a finding that the holder of the original notes thereby extended their time of payment and release a subsequent indorser from liabil- ity. Benton v. German-American Nat. Bank, 45 Neb. 850. 505. 7. National Citizens' Bank v. Toplitz, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 593, affirmed 178 N. Y. 464 (under Negotiable Instruments Law, § 55) ; Wright v. Independence Nat. Bank, 96 Va. 728, 70 Am. St. Rep. 889. 8. Agreement Must Be Binding — District of Columbia. — Reed v. Tierney, 1 2 App. Cas. ( D. C.) 165 ; Clark v. Read, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 343; Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. Georgia. — See Tanner v. Gude, 100 Ga. 157. Illinois. — Heenan v. Howard, 81 111. App. 629; Wyatt v. Dufrene, 106 111. App. 214. Indiana. — • Bugh v. Crum, 26 Ind. App. 465, 84 Am. St. Rep. 307; Brannon v. Irons, 19 Ind. App. 305. Kansas. — Roberson v. Blevins, 57 Kan. 50 ; Eaton v. Whitmore, 3 Kan. App. 760; Horton Bank v. Brooks, 10 Kan. App. 576, 62 Pac. Rep. 675. Massachusetts. — Way v. Dunham, 166 Mass. 263. Missouri. — Fisher v. Stevens, 143 Mo. 181 ; La Belle Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 69 Mo. App. 99 ; Smith v. Warren, 88 Mo. App. 285. Ohio. — Cone v. Rees, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 192, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 632. Pennsylvania. — Bishop's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 85 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v . Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; In re Bishop, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 553- Tennessee. — Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875: Texas. — Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 212; Tallahassee First Nat. Bank v. Mc- Cord, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 1003; Angel v. Miller, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 679; Behrns v. Rogers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 419 ; Robson v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 83; Guerguin v. Boone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 630. Virginia. — State Sav. Bank v. Baker, 93 Va. 510; Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. West Virginia. — Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122. An Agreement by an Agent, Not Having Ex- press Authority, to extend the time of payment is not binding on the principal, and does not release the indorser. Behrns v. Rogers, (Tex. Civ. Apo. 1807) 40 S. W. Rep. 419- Unauthorized Renewal by Cashier Does Not Re- lease Indorser. — Gray v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 81 Md. 631. Belay Granted or Promised upon a Usurious Consideration not being based upon a valid en- forceable contract will not release the sureties. McKamy v. McNabb, 97 Tenn. 236. 506. 1. Definite in Extent — District of Co- lumbia. — Reed v. Tierney, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 165; Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575. Georgia. — Tanner v. Gude, 100 Ga. 157. Illinois. — -Heenan v. Howard, 81 111. App. 629. Indiana. — Bugh v. Crum, 26 Ind. App. 465, 84 Am. St. Rep. 307; Brannon v. Irons, 19 Ind. App. 305; Schieber v. Traudt, 19 Ind. App. 349- Kansas. — Roberson v. Blevins, 57 Kan. 50; Eaton v. Whitmore, 3 Kan. App. 760. Maryland. — Gray v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 81 Md. 631. Missouri. — Fisher v. Stevens, 143 Mo. 181; La Belle Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 69 Mo. App. 99 ; Smith v. Warren, 88 Mo. App. 285. Ohio. — Cone v. Rees, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 192, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 632. Pennsylvania. — Bishop's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 85 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; In re Bishop, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 553- Tennessee. — Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875 ; Stone's River Nat. Bank v. Walter, 104 Tenn. 11. Texas. — Robson v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 83 ; Guerguin „. Boone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 630. Virginia. — ■ State Sav. Bank v. Baker, 93 Va. 510; Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Implied Contract for Extension by receiving interest in advance on past due note — effect as to guarantors. St. Paul Trust Co. v. St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, 64 Minn. 439. Indorsers Not Released by Renewals Discounted under Continuing Guaranty. — Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757. An Extension Until the Fall of the Year is sufficiently definite as extending at least to the first day of September. Robson v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 686. 2. Consideration Necessar — District of Co- lumbia. — Reed v. Tierney, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 165; Walker v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 575- Illinois. — Heenan v. Howard, 81 111. App. 629; Wyatt v. Dufrene, 106 111. App. 214. Indiana. — ■ Bugh v. Crum, 26 Ind. App. 465, 84 Am. St. Rep. 307; Brannon v. Irons, 19 Ind. App. 305 ; Schieber v. Traudt, 19 Ind. App. 349- Kansas. — ■ Eaton v. Whitmore, 3 Kan. App. 760; Horton Bank v. Brooks, 10 Kan. App. 576, 62 Pac. Rep. 675. Missouri. — Fishers. Stevens, 143 Mo. 181; La Belle Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 69 Mo. App. 99 ; Smith v. Warren, 88 Mo. App. 285. New York. — Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757. Ohio. — Cone v. Rees, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 192, 1 1 Ohio Cir. Ct. 632. Pennsylvania. — Bishop's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 661 506 BILLS OF EXCHANGE, ETC. Vol. IV. 506. Release of Prior Parties. — See note 6. By Release of Securities. — See note "] . 85 ; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621 ; In re Bishop, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 553- Tennessee. — Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875. See also McKamy v. McNabb, 97 Tenn. 236. Texas. — Tallahassee First Nat. Bank v. Mc- Cord, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 1003; Angel v. Miller, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 679; Robson v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 83 ; Guerguin v. Boone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 630. Virginia. — Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Sufficiency of Considerations. — Drescher v. Fulham, 1 1 Colo. App. 62 ; Brannon v. Irons, 19 Ind. App. 305 ; Horton Bank v. Brooks, 64 Kan. 285. Payment of Interest in Advance Sufficient Con- sideration. — Schieber v. Traudt, 19 Ind. App. 349- Promise to Pay Interest for Period of Extension Sufficient Consideration. — Eaton v. Whitmore, 3 Kan. App. 760. Payment of Interst, Usurious or Legal, Sufficient Consideration. — Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W- Va. 122. See also Niblack v. Champeny, 10 S. Dak. 165. Giving of a Real Estate Mortgage a, Sufficient Consideration. — Roberson v. Blevins, 57 Kan. SO- The Giving of a Demand Note in order to render the original note a live asset, the original note not being surrendered and the time of payment not being thereby extended, does not constitute sufficient consideration to release the surety. Twelfth Ward Bank v. Samuels, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 168, affirmed 176 N. Y. 593. Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Consideration. — Niblack v. Champeny, 10 S. Dak. 165. Surety Not Released Where Renewal Note Is Forgery. — Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 212. 506. 3. Mere Delay No Discharge — United States. — Greenway v. William D. Orthwein Grain Co., (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 536. District of Columbia. — Clark v. Read, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 343. Illinois. — Heenan v. Howard, 81 111. App. 629. Indiana. — Bugh u. Crum, 26 Ind. App. 46s, 84' Am. St. Rep. 307. Louisiana. — Forstall v. Fussell, 50 La. Ann. 256. Massachusetts. — Agawam Nat. Bank v. Downing, 169 Mass. 297. Missouri. — La Belle Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 69 Mo. App. 99. New York. — Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757- Pennsylvania. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Mar- shall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621. Tennessee. — -Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875. Texas. — Behrns v. Rogers, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 419; Rice v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 1023 ; Guerguin v. Boone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 630. Virginia. — Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686 ; Tate v. New York State Bank, 96 Va. 765. West Virginia. — Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122. 4. Taking New Security as Substitute. — In re Bishop, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 553 ; Rudolph v. Hewitt, 11 S. Dak. 646; Black River Falls First Nat. Bank v. Jones, 92 Wis. 36. See also Peterson v. Stege, 67 111. App. 147. Maker Not Discharged by Acceptance of New Security from Indorser. — Agawam Nat. Bank v. Downing, 169 Mass. 297. New Security as Collateral Merely. — Fisher v. Denver Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. 373 ; Roberson v. Blevins, 57 Kan. 50 ; Merchants' Trust, etc., Co. u. Jones, 95 Me. 335, 85 Am. St. Rep. 412; Agawam Nat. Bank v. Downing, 169 Mass. 297; Cincinnati Fifth Nat. Bank v. Woolsey, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 757; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 621; Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Taking of Additional Security under Agreement for an Extension of Time releases a surety not a party thereto. Merchants' Bank v. Bussell, 16 Wash. 546. A Note Payable on Demand After Date being immediately payable, the acceptance thereof by the holder does, not constitute such an exten- sion of time as to release an indorser on the note to cover which it was given. Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 357. Exchange of Security for One of Equal Value Does Not Release. — Keeler v. Hollweg, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 415, affirmed 36 N. Y. App. Div. 490. Release by Change of Security a Question of Fact. — Nassau Bank v. Campbell, 147 N. Y. 694. Refusal of the Holder to Accept Additional Security and extend time does not discharge the indorser. City Sav. Bank v. Kensington Land Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 1037. 5. Reservation of Rights Against Indorsers. — Big Rapids Nat. Bank v. Peters, 120 Mich. 518; Brink v. Stratton, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 336, reversed 176 N. Y. 150, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 506 ; Winfree v. Lex- ington First Nat. Bank, 97 Va. 83. See also Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 183 Mass. 66. 6. Release of or Composition with Prior Parties. — t- Brown v. Croy, 74 Mo. App. 462 ; Spies v. National City Bank, 174 N. Y. 222, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 70 ; Plankinton v. Gorman, 93 Wis. 560. See also Schuff v. Germania Safety- Vault, etc.. Co., (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 229. Parol Release Does Not Release Other Parties. — Valley Sav. Bank v. Mercer, 97 Md. 458. 7. Discharge by Release of Securities. — Got- zian v. Heine, 87 Minn. 429 ; George v. Somer- ville, 153 Mo. 7; Keeler v. Hollweg, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 415, affirmed 36 N. Y. App. Div. 490 ; Clapp v. Cooper, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 466, reversing (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 62 N. Y. Supp. 11 33; Fayetteville Bank v. Nimocks, 124 N. Car. 352; Price County Bank v. McKenzie, 91 Wis. 658; Plankinton v. Gorman, 93 Wis. 560. The Mere Exchange of Security does not re- 662 Vol. IV. BILLS OF EXCHA NGE — BILLS OF LA DING. 506-5 1 6 506. 8. Discharge of Joint Parties. — See note 8. One Joint Party a Surety. — ■ See note 9. lease the indorser where the two securities are of equal value and the indor9er is not injured thereby. State Bank v. Smith, 155 N. Y. 185. 506. 8. Joint Parties. — Morse v. Blanchard, 117 Mich. 37; Banque Provinciale v. Arnoldi, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 624 ; Bogart v. Robertson, 8 Ont. L. Rep. 261 ; Leet v. Blumenthal, 13 Quebec Super. Ct. 250. Taking a New Note of One of the Joint Makers does not release the others unless there is a positive agreement to that effect. Bexar Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Lockwood, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 253. 9. Release of Joint Party with Knowledge of Suretyship. — Drescher v. Fulham, 11 Colo. App. 62 ; Lazelle v. Miller, 40 Oregon 549 ; Mays v. Sanders, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 36 S. W. Rep. 108. The rule that where the guaranty is joint the release of one obligor releases the other, and that the release of the principal discharges the surety only, applies where the discharge is brought about by some affirmative act on the part of the creditor. It does not apply where the estate of a surety who has died is dis- charged through a failure to present the note against the estate within the specified time. Donnerberg v. Oppenheimer, 15 Wash. 290. BILLS OF LADING. By Theodor Megaarden. II. Issuing Bills of Lading — 1. Duty of Carrier to Issue. — See See note 1. 3. By Whom Issued — By the Master of a Vessel — Implied Authority. — See III. Form, Contents, and Execution — 2. Contents. — See note 8. 3. Execution and Delivery — b. Delivery. — See note 7. IV. Assent of Consignor — 2. Necessity and Effect of Assent. — See 510. note 6. 5tl. 513. note 2. 513. 514. 515. note 3. 3. How Given — a. By Signing the Instrument. — See note 4. 516. b. By Receiving and Retaining the Instrument — (i) In General. — See note 2. (2) View that Assent Is Conclusively Presumed from Acceptance — (a) General Rule. — See note 3. 510. 6. See Cushing v. McLeod, 2 N. Bruns. Eq. Rep. 63; Forsyth v. Sutherland, 31 Nova Scotia 391. 511. 1. Statutory Provisions Requiring Car- rier to Issue. — Sherman, etc., R. Co. v. Conly, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 253; Conley v. Sherman, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 295. Issuing Bill of Lading Without Having Re- ceived Goods. — In addition to requiring car- riers to issue bills of lading, some of the stat- utes impose a penalty upon carriers that issue bills of lading without having received the goods for carriage. See Thompson v. Alabama Midland R. Co., 122 Ala. 378, wherein it was held that the defendant, an intermediate car- rier, did not incur the statutory penalty by issuing, for the accommodation of the shipper and consignee, a bill of lading for goods which it expected soon to receive from the initial carrier. 512. 2. See O'Connell v. One Thousand and Two Bales Sisal Hemp, 75 Fed. Rep. 410. 513. 8. Reference to Charter-Party. — The words " freight and all conditions as per charter- party " will incorporate into a bill of lading all conditions in the charter applicable to and con- sistent with the character of the bill of lading. O'Connell v. One Thousand and Two Bales Sisal Hemp, 75 Fed. Rep. 408; The Sandfield, 79 Fed. Rep. 371, affirmed (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. Rep. 663. 514. 7. See Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Potts, 33 Ind. App. 564. In Dunbar v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 62 S. Car. 414, it was held that where a shipper re- ceived a receipt reciting that the shipment was subject to the terms of the regular bill of lading for which the receipt was exchangeable, the law imputed to him notice of, and he was bound by, the terms of the regular bill. 515. 3. Assent, Express or Implied. Necessary to Bind Shipper. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co., v. Potts, 33 Ind. App. 564. 4. Assent Conclusively Presumed from Signature. — Stewart v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 21 Ind. App. 218. 516. 2. Dobson v. Central R. Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 586, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 516; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. La Tourette, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 486 ; Schaller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 07 Wis. 31. 3. Assent Presumed from Acceptance of Bill of Lading. — Dean v. Furness, 9 Quebec Q. B. 81 ; 663 517-537 BILLS OF LADING. Vol. IV. 517. (b) Circumstances Bebutting Presumption of Assent. — See notes 2, 4. 518. (0) Beceiving Bill After Shipment of Goods under Oral Contract. — See note I. 519. Express Assent. — See note 2. (3) View that Possession of Bill by Shipper Is Prima Facie Evidence of Assent. — See note 3. (4) View that Assent Is a Question of Fact. — See note 4. 521. V. Fobce and Effect — 1. Functions of Bills of Lading — Receipt and Contract. — See note 3. 522. 2. As Evidence — b. Of What Facts Evidence — (i) General Rule. — See note 4. (2) Of the Shipment, Description, Quantity, and Condition of the Goods. — See notes 5, 6, 7. 523. ' Contents Unknown," Etc. — Bills Containing, Not Evidence of Contents of Packages. — See note 1. 525. " Contents and Weight Unknown " — Bills Containing, Not Evidence of Quantity. — See note 2. (3) Of the Ownership of the Goods. — See notes 3, 4. (4) Of the Terms of the Contract. — See note 6. 526. c. Admissibility of Parol Evidence to Vary or Contra- dict — (2) Receipt Clauses — (a) General Bule. — See note 7. 527. Clause Acknowledging the Beceipt of Goods. — See note I. Cox v. Central Vermont R. Co., 170 Mass. 138, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 516; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Berdan, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 481, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 326; Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 168, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct. 41. 517. 2. Rudell v. Ogdensburg Transit Co., 117 Mich. 568 (bill of lading handed to ship- per's clerk at the time of, or soon after, the delivery of the goods to the carrier). 4. Accepting Bill under Circumstances Inducing the Shipper to Mistake Its Nature. — Stoner v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 109 Iowa 551. 5 IS. 1. Assent Not Presumed from Acceptance of Bill. — The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. 167, applying the rule where previous contract was in writing ; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (C. C. A.) 120 Fed. Rep. 873, reversing 112 Fed. Rep. 829; Stoner v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 109 Iowa 551. 519. 2. Ratification of Terms of Bill — As- suming Control of Goods Shipped. — North British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Central Vermont R. Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 4, affirmed without opinion in 158 N. Y. 726. 3. Acceptance Prima Facie Evidence of Assent. — Schaller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 97 Wis. 31- 4. Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. Bates Mach. Co., 98 III. App. 311, affirmed in .200 HI. 636. 531. 3. Character of Instrument — Beceipt and Contract. — Crampton v. McBain, 7 1 Vt. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 521. 522. 4. Goods Shipped under Previous Con- tract. — Bills of lading issued for goods shipped under a previous contract covering future ship- ments are only evidence of the dates and amounts of shipments made under the pre- existing contract. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 6iq, affirmed in 175 111. 557. 5. Of the Shipment of Goods. — The Titania. (C. C. A.) 131 Fed. Rep. 229, affirming 124 Fed. Rep. 975 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Johnston, 58 Neb. 236. . 6. Of the Weight and Quantity of the Goods, — Smith v. Bedouin Steam Nav. Co., (1896) A. C. 70. See also Waydell v. Adams, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 46 N. Y. Supp. 240. The bill in the hands of the consignee is conclusive evidence against the party signing it. Art. 2422 C. C. Hart v. Pearson, 12 Quebec Super. Ct. 540. 7. Of the Condition of the Goods. — Gardner v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 645, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 622. 523. 1. " Contents Unknown." — Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 171, the in- strument (a shipping receipt) reading " in ap- parent good order except as noted (contents and condition of packages unknown)." 525. 2. "Contents and Weight Unknown." — Waydell v. Adams, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 46 N. Y. Supp. 240. 3. Ryan v. Great Northern R. Co., 90 Minn. 12; National Newark Banking Co. v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774; Pullman First Nat. Bank v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 28 Wash. 439, construing the Washington statutes. 4. Prima Facie Evidence of Title in Consignee. — Merchants' Exch. Bank v. McGraw, (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 930; Grayson. County Nat. Bank v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1094. 6, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, affirming 99 Fed. Rep. 1006, 39 C. C. A. 680. 526. 7. Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. Elder, (C. C. A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 1001 ; Cunard Steamship Co. v. Kelley (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 678 ; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National Live Stock Bank, 178 111. 506. 527. 1. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. u . National Live Stock Bank. 178 111. 506. Identity of Goods. — It may be shown by parol evidence that the goods actually received were different from those described in the bill of 664 Vol. IV. BILLS OF LA Dim. 537 546 537. Clause Stating the Weight and Quantity of the Goods. — See note 3. 538. See note 1. 533. (b) Modifying Effect of Dootrine of Estoppel — cc. Estoppel of Shipowner or Carrier — (W) Bills Issued Without Receiving Goods — In the 'United States. — See notes 4, 5- 534. See note 1. 535. Where Goods Are Afterwards Received. — See notes I, 2. (cc) Bills for Quantity Larger than Shipped. — See note 5. 536. (4) Contractual Stipulations — (a) General Eule. — See note 6. 537. See note 1. 540. (b) Application of Enle — dd. Express Stipulations in Bill — Stipulation as to Place of Delivery. — See note 4. 543. (c) Limitations of and Exceptions to the Eule — aa. Evidence of Fraud or Mis- take. — See note 2. 545. cc. Evidence of Usage or Custom — In Connection with Express Terms. — See note 1. VI. Negotiability — 1. In General. — See notes 3, 4, 5. 546. 2. As Symbols of Property — a. General Rule. — See note 1. lading. Cunard Steamship Co. v. Kelley, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 678. 527. 3. Carrier May Contradict by Parol.— The Willie D. Sandhoval 92 Fed. Rep. 286; Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. Elder (C. C..A.) 101 Fed. Rep. 1001. See also Southern R. Co.w. Allison, 115 Ga. 635. 528. 1. Shipper or Consignee May Contradict by Parol. — Higley v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 99 Iowa 503, 61 Am. St. Rep. 250. 533. 4. English Doctrine Followed in United States Courts. — The Isola Di Procida, 124 Fed. Rep. 942, holding also that the rule was not changed by the Harter Act. Eule Applied to False Statement of Date of Ship- ment. — The rule that the owner of the vessel is not estopped from denying a false statement in a bill of lading issued by the master that certain goods were received, has been applied to a false statement as to the date of shipment. The Isola Di Procida, 124 Fed. Rep. 942. 5. English Doctrine Followed by State Courts. — See Smith v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48. 534. 1. Doctrine that Carrier Is Estopped. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 4 Kan. App. 305. 535. 1. But not when the goods subse- quently received were taken from the carrier by replevin. Smith v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48. 2. The carrier is not bound if, by deceit or mistake, he is induced to receive goods which are different from those described in the bill of lading. Cunard Steamship Co. v. Kelley, (C. C. A.) us Fed. Rep. 678. 6. View that Carrier Is Not Estopped. — Ameri- can Sugar Refining Co. 11. Maddock, (C. C. A.) 93 Fed. Rep. 980. 536. 6. The View Criticised. — Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Kevekordes, (Ind. App. 1904) 69 N. E. Rep. 1022. 537. 1. Georgia. — Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Banking, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 512, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 536 ; McElveen v. Southern R. Co., 109 Ga. 249. Indiana. — Stewart v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 21 Ind. App. 218. Louisiana. — Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Steamer Red River, 106 La. 42. Ohio. — ■ Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 168, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct. 41; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. La Tourette, 1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 486. Pennsylvania. — Keller v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 196 Pa. St. 57, affirming 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 249. Texas. — Bessling v. Houston, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 639. 540. 4. Place of Delivery — Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Show. — McElveen v. Southern R. Co., 109 Ga. 249, holding that evidence of a parol representation that the freight should be delivered to a connecting railroad, and not a steamer, is inadmissible to vary the terms of the bill of lading. 543. 2. Bill Prepared by Shipper. — If a bill of lading is prepared by the shipper himself he is precluded from showing fraud or mistake. Bessling v. Houston, etc:, R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 639. 545. 1. Express Term — Usage Cannot Con- trol. — Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Western R. Co., 128 Ala. 167 ; Parsons v. Hart, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 473. 3. Negotiable — Bills of Lading Said to Be. — Sather Banking Co. v. Hartwig, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 90. 4. Quasi-negotiable — Bills of Lading Said to Be. — The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655. 5. Crampton v. McBain, 71 Vt. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 545. 546. 1. Transfer of Bill of Lading Passes Title to Property. — -The Prussia, 100 Fed. Rep. 489, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 546; The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655; American Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 123 Ala. 615, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 546; People v. Midkiff, 71 111. App. 141, dismissed 174 111. 323 ; American Zinc, etc., Co. v. Markle Lead Works, 102 Mo. App. 1 58; 'Robert C. White Live Stock Commission Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330; Storey v. Hershey. ig Pa. Super. Ct. 483. Statutory Provisions. — The Protection, (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 516. Intention to Pass Title Necessary. — Title to the property does not pass by the indorsement and delivery of a bill of lading unless that is the intention of the parties, and the real trans- 665 547-549 BILLS OF LADING. Vol. IV. c Mode of Transfer — By Delivery. — See note 2. Under Statutory Provisions. — See note I. d. Transfer as Collateral Security. — See notes 3, 4, 5. e. Duration of Negotiability. — See note 8. /. Limitations of Negotiability — Negotiable instrument* Proper Dis- tinguished. — See note 5. g. Rights of Bona Fide Purchasers — (i) General Rule.— See note 7. 547. 548. 549. action may be shown by parol. Walker v. Athena First Nat. Bank, 43 Oregon 106. 517. 2. Delivery. — Lew;s v. Springville Banking Co., 166 111. 311 ; American Zinc, etc., Co. v. Markle Lead Works, 102 Mo. App. 158; Walker v. Athena First Nat. Bank, 43 Oregon 106, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 547. Return to Consignor. — A transfer by the con- signee to the consignor may be made by the return of the bill of lading to him. American Roofing Co. u. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 8 Ohio Dec. 490, 5 Ohio N. P. 146. 548. 1, Illustrative Provisions. — See Pull- man First Nat. Bank v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 38 Wash. 439, construing a Washington statute. Even though a statute may be construed as providing that a written indorsement is neces- sary to transfer the legal title, a transfer of the ■bill of lading without indorsement, like the delivery of an unindorsed note, would be suffi- cient to pass the equitable title. Turner v. Israel, 64 Ark. 244. 3. United States. — Merchants' Exch. Bank v. McGraw, (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. Rep. 930. Alabama. — American Nat. Bank v. Hender- son, 123 Ala. 612, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 548. Iowa. — -Shaffer u. Rhynders, 116 Iowa 472, holding that the fact that the pledgee obtains a guaranty from the consignee that the draft will be paid is immaterial ; Ayres v. Dorsey Produce Co., 101 Iowa 141. New Jersey. — National Newark Banking Co. v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774. New York. — Matter of McElheny, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 131, affirmed 178 N. Y. 610. Texas. — Cuero First Nat. Bank v. San An- tonio, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 1033. Vermont. — Crampton v. McBain, 71 Vt. 246, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 548. Washington. — Seattle Nat. Bank v. Powles, 33 Wash. 21. See also Pullman First Nat. Bank v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 28 Wash. 439. Consignor's Indorsing Draft to Third Person. — When the vendor of goods ships them, taking from the carrier a bill of lading to deliver to his own order, and thereupon draws a draft payable to his own order upon the vendee, attaching the bill of lading and indorsing to a third party such draft for value, the title to the goods vests in the indorsee at least to the extent of the amount advanced. Willard Mfg. Co. v. Tierney, 133 N. Car. 630 ; Lewis v. Springville Banking Co., 166 111. 311; Kansas City First Nat. Bank v. Mt. Pleasant Milling Co., 103 Iowa 518; Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 249. And it has been held that when a bill of lading and draft is negotiated in this manner, 666 the proceeds in the hands of the collecting bank may be subjected by the consignee to a claim for damages for shortage in the goods. Searles v. Smith Grain Co., 80 Miss. 693, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 549. See also Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 249. But compare Blaisdell v. White, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 70. When the transfer by the consignor is merely for collection, no title to or control of the property passes to the transferee. Walker v. Athena First Nat. Bank, 43 Oregon 102. 4. Coker v. Memphis First Nat. Bank, 112 Ga. 71, wherein it is held that the title of the transferee is not lost simply because the bill is indorsed over to the consignor for the sole purpose of having him dispose of the goods for the transferee's benefit. Title of Pledgee. — A pledgee to whom a bill of lading is given as security gets the legal title to the goods and the right of possession only if such is the intention of the parties, and that intention is open to explanation. The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655. 6. See Cuero First Nat. Bank v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 97 Tex. 201. Payment by Third Person. — When a draft with bill of lading attached is sent to a bank for collection, a third person who pays the charges under an agreement that he shall hold the prop- erty until he shall be repaid acquires at least ' an equitable title to the goods under a statute making bills of lading negotiable by written in- dorsement and delivery. Turner v. Israel, 64 Ark. 244. 8. Transfer After Arrival of Goods. — Anchor Mill Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 102 Iowa 262. Transfer After Delivery of Goods. — The in- nocent transferee of a bill of lading after the goods have been delivered does not obtain title, even though the bill contains a provision that it shall be surrendered upon delivery of the goods. National Commercial Bank v. Lacka- wanna Transp. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 270, affirmed 172 N. Y. 596, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 548, 549. Carrier Deprived of Possession by Legal Process. — When the parties to a transfer of a bill of lading know that the property has, prior to the transfer, been taken from the possession of the carrier by legal process, the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading cannot operate as a transfer of the possession of the property. Storey v. Hershey, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 485. 549. 5. Grounds for Distinction Stated, — Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep! iog4. 7. transferee Acquires Title of Transferrer.— Searles v. Smith Grain Co., 80 Miss. 693, Vol. IV. BILLS OF LADING — BILLS OF SALE. 550-569 (2) Purchasers of Lost or Stolen Bill. — See npte 1. (3 550. (3) Purchasers of Bills Delivered by Carrier to Person Without Title — Bights of Bona Fide Consignee. — See note 5. 551. (6) Exceptions to and Limitations of Rule — (b) Transfer by Apparent Owner — aa. In General. — See note 2. it. By Consignee Invested with Apparent Ownership. — See note 4. 553. 3. As Evidence of the Contract for Carriage — At the Common Law. — See note 5. quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 549; Hart v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 410; Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 249, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 549. 550. 1. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 Ga. 320. 5. Hart v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 72 N. H. 410. 551. 2. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 Ga. 330, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) ssi. 4. Bona Fide Transferee Acquires Title of Vendor. — Munroe v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 545 ; Commercial Bank v. J. K. Armsby Co., 120 Ga. 74, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 589 ; Western Union Cold Storage Co. v. Bankers Nat. Bank, 176 111. 260, affirming 73 111. App. 410. 553. 6. Cox v. Central Vermont R. Co., 170 Mass. 136, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 554. BILLS OF SALE. By Franklyn G. Bamman. 555. I. Definition. — See note 2. 557. II. The Instrument and Its Interpretation — 1. In General — Description of Property. — See note I . 2. Must Be Delivered — a. In General. — See note 3. 558. b. Effect of Delivery. — See note 1. Gives Vendee Right to Possession of Property. — See note 2. 559. 3. Delivery of Possession of the Property — a. Effect of Failure TO DELIVER — At Common Law. — See note I . 560. b. What Constitutes Delivery. — See note 2. 569. 4. When Treated as a Mortgage — a. Generally. — See note 1. 555. 2. See Putnam v. McDonald, 72 Vt. 5. When a Trust. — It may be shown by parol that the transfer of personal property by a conveyance absolute in form was in trust for the assignor. Martin v. Martin, 43 Oregon 119, citing Chace v. Chapin, 130 Mass. 128. Bill of Sale as Means of Preferring Creditors. — Fraser v. Macpherson, 34 ,N. Bruns. 417; Owens v. Gascho, 154 Ind. 225. A Mere Receipted Statement of Account contain- ing no words importing a transfer of title is not a bill of sale. Putnam v. McDonald, 72 Vt. 5. 557. 1. Description of Property. — Fraser v. Macpherson, 34 N. Bruns. 417; Brown v. Loos, 66 Mo. App. 211. Parol Evidence Admissible to Explain What Is Intended by Description. — But see Keller v. Rhodes, 64 111. App. 36. 3. The Vendor May Waive a condition that title is not to pass till delivery of the bill of sale, and by delivering the property to the vendee entitle himself to maintain an action for the purchase price, although the bill of sale has never been delivered. Yori v. Cohn, 26 Nev. 206. 558. 1. Delivery of Instrument Passes Title to Property. — ■ Bellerby v. Thomas, 105 Ga. 477 ; Casentini v. Galveston Fruit Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 756. After-acquired Property Mingled with Property Transferred. — See Fraser v. Macpherson, 34 N. Bruns. 417. 2. Vendee Has Right to Possession of Property, — See Crug v. Gorham, 74 Conn. 541. 559. 1. Modification of Common-law Rule. — See Heisch v. Bell, (N. Mex. 1902) 70 Pac. Rep. 572. 560. 2. What Constitutes Delivery of Posses- sion. — It was held that where a debtor left a bill of sale in a designated place, and, after the debtor absconded, the creditor for whose benefit the bill was executed found it there together with a letter stating that the bill was in a desk which with the keys were " hereby delivered" to him, there was a sufficient de- livery as against a subsequent attachment by another creditor. Chezum v. Parker, 19 Wash. 562. 1. When Bill of Sale Treated as Mort- gage. — See infra, the title Chattel Mort- gages, 951. 1. 667 504-570 SILLS OF SALE -BISHOP. Vol. IV. 504. 505. note 2. 507. 508. 509. Separate Written Defeasance. — See note 4. c. Admissibility of Parol Evidence (1) In General. — See (2) Degree of Proof Required. — See note 1 . 5. Warranty Cannot Be Shown by Parol Evidence. — See note 3. When Instrument a Receipt. — See note 2. III. Registration — 1. In General. — See note 3. 571. 2. Delivery of Property Equivalent to Registration. — See note 1. 3. Unauthorized Registration a Nullity. — See note 2. 4. Sale of Live Stock — Texas Statute — stock Hot Running on Range. — — See note 4. 573. IV. INSTRUMENT AS EVIDENCE — Consideration Expressed — Prima Facie Evidence. — See note I. 570. BISHOP. — See note 1. In Wetmore v. Moloney, 127 Mich. 372, a bill of sale was held to be a mortgage, although it contained the statement : " It is understood that this instrument conveys an absolute title." It Must Have Been Intended at the time of the execution of the bill of sale that it should operate as a security, in order for the court to treat it as a mortgage. Long v. State, 44 Fla. 134- 564. 4. Separate Written Defeasance.— Dick- inson v. Oliver, 96 N. Y. App. Div. 65. 565. 2. Parol Evidence Admissible — Georgia. — Denton v. Shields, 120 Ga. 1076. Indian Territory. — Rogers v. Nidiffer, (In- dian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 673. Kansas. — McCluskey v. Cubbison, 8 Kan. App. 857, 57 Pac. Rep. 496. New York. — Donnelly v. McArdle, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 33. Ohio. — Mullenkops v. Baumgardner, n Ohio Cir. Dec. 65s, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 591. Oklahoma. — Miller v. Campbell Commission Co., 13 Okla. 75. Oregon. — Culver v. Randle, (Oregon 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 394. Texas. — Watson v. Boswell, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 379- To Show Conveyance in Trust. — It may be shown by parol that a trust and not an abso- lute transfer was intended. Martin v. Martin, 43 Oregon 119. 567. 1. Insufficient Evidence. — Evidence that the vendee would have been willing to let the vendor redeem the property is not suffi- cient to transform an absolute bill of sale into a mortgage, where there was no agreement to that effect. Fisher v. Stout, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 97- 56§. 3. What Constitutes a Warranty in a Bill of Sale. — It is a question of fact where a doubt exists whether certain recitals in a bill of sale are intended as description or war- ranties, and it may be determined by oral evi- dence or proof of the custom of the trade. Sharp v. Sturgeon, 66 Mo. App. 191. 569. 2. Putnam v. McDonald, 72 Vt. 4, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 569- 3. Registration of Instrument. — The recorda- tion of a conditional bill of sale was held to be notice to a third person that title was still in the vendor, and the instrument was admissible 658 to show that as between the vendee and a third person no title passed by a sale of a colt subse- quently foaled by the mare which was the sub- ject of the bill of sale. Anderson v. Leverette, 116 Ga. 732. Valid Between Parties Though Not Recorded. — Heisch v. Bell, (N. Mex. 1902) 70 Pac. Rep. 572- Recording Not Essential in Texas. — Failure to record a bill of sale does not, in the absence of fraud, entitle a creditor of the seller to levy an attachment on the goods, although delivery has not been made to the purchaser. Casentini v. Galveston Fruit Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 756. Transfers of Choses in Action are not deemed to be within the meaning of the Georgia statute providing that a " bill of sale of personalty " shall be void unless filed. Thomas v. Schu- macher, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 441, affirmed 163 N. Y. 554. As to the Requirement and Effect of Registra- tion in General, see the title Recording Acts. 571. 1. Delivery of Property Equivalent to Registration. — Owens v. Gascho, 154 Ind. 225. see also Heisch v. Bell. (N. Mex. 1902) 70 Pac. Rep. 572. 2. Unauthorized Registration a Nullity. — See Baldinger v. Levine, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 130. See also the title Recording Acts. But it was held that where registration was unnecessary, yet the fact that it was filed should be considered in determining whether a bill absolute on its face was in fact given as se- curity. Black v. Simon, 116 Mich. 382. 4. Stock Not Running on Range. — See Brill v. Christy, (Ariz. 1901) 63 Pac. Rep. 757. 573. 1. Consideration Expressed Prima Facie Evidence. — See Rogers v. Thompson, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 27 Misc. (N. Y.) 801. Oral Evidence to Impeach Consideration. — Where the omission to insert additional con- sideration is not due to fraud, accident, or mis- take it cannot be supplied by oral evidence. McFarland v. McGill, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 298. 576. 1. The Transfer Tax Law of New York provides for the exemption of property be- queathed to a bishop, etc. In construing this section the court said : " The statute uses only the word ' bishop,' but I have no question that it covers a bequest made to an archbishop or the cardinal archbishop, in his official capacity, Vol. IV. BITCH— BLOCKADE. 576-584 576. BITCH. — See note 2. [BLACKGUARD. — See note 7a.] 577. BLACKLISTING EMPLOYEES. — See note 2. BLACKMAIL. — See note 4. as they are all, unquestionably, bishops, as well as the religious and temporal heads of their church." Matter of Kelly, (Surrogate Ct.) 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 169. 576. 2. Libel and Slander. — State v. Har- well, 129 N. Car. 550; Craver v. Norton, 114 Iowa 46 ; Robertson v. Edelsstein, 104 Wis. 440 ; Jacobs v. Cater, 87 Minn. 448 ; Craig v. Pyles, 101 Ky. 593 ; Stoneri/. Erisman, 206 Pa. St. 600. la. Libel and Slander. — In Paladino v. Gus- tin, 17 Ont. Pr. 560, the court said: "The word blackguard ordinarily means a vulgar, base fellow ; a ruffian, a scoundrel. It does not appear to me necessary here to refer to the early history or the use of the word. Most people have an understanding as to what is meant by it, and, so far as the use of the word has concern, the question is, what would a by- stander think was meant by it in the circum- stances in which it was used? Strictly, the word may be considered as not being applicable to a female at all ; yet, as it appears to me, the man who calls a woman a blackguard should be answerable in respect of the meaning that the ordinary bystander would, in all the circum- stances, attach to it." 577. 2. Blacklisting — Statutes. — The Min- nesota statute prohibiting blacklisting has been held constitutional. State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279. In this case the court said : " Conceding that the word blacklist, as used in the title, has no well-defined meaning in the law, either by statute or judicial expression, the general understanding of the term is that it has refer- ence to the practice of one employer presenting to another the names of employees for the pur- pose of furnishing information concerning their standing as employees, and, so understood, it may have reference to the subject of influencing or coercing employees or employers." 4. Libel and Slander. — The word blackmail- ing is libelous per se, requiring no innuendo, and it does not lie upon the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the charge. Macdonald v. Mail Printing Co., 2 Ont. L. Rep. 278. 583. 583. 584. BLASPHEMY AND PROFANITY. II. As Chimes — 2. Statutes Regarding. — See note 2. [BLIND SIDING. — See note 30.] BLOCK. — See note I. BLOCKADE. — See note i. • State 582. 2. Statutes in United States. v. Wiley, 76 Miss. 282. The Name of the Deity Need Not Be Used in order to constitute profanity under the Mis- sissippi statute. Any words importing an im- precation of divine vengeance, or implying di- vine condemnation, so used as to constitute a public nuisance, are sufficient. State v. Wiley, 76 Miss. 282. In Georgia a similar rule obtains under the statute making it an offense to use profane lan- guage in the presence of a female. Foster v. State, 99 Ga. 56. Georgia Statute — Profane Language in Pres- ence of Female. — The Penal Code Ga., § 396, making it penal to use obscene, vulgar, or profane language in the presence of a female must be held, under the rule of strict con- struction applicable to penal statutes, to con- template spoken words only. Where, there- fore, an indictment alleged that the accused used obscene and vulgar language in the pres- ence of a female by delivering to her a written communication set out in the indictment, a demurrer thereto on the ground that the indict- ment charged no offense against the laws of this state should have been sustained. Wil- liams v. State, 117 Ga. 13. There being no evidence that the profane language alleged to have been used by the de- fendant in the presence of females was with- out provocation, or that the defendant knew of the proximity of the women, his conviction was contrary to law. Hardin v. State, 114 Ga. 58. On the trial of one charged with the offense of using profane language, without provocation, in the presence of a female, the accused may defend by showing that he was provoked to use the language by one other than such female, the sufficiency of the provocation being a ques- tion for the jury, under all the circumstances of the case. Ray v. Stdte, 113 Ga. 1065. Sa. A Blind Siding is one without a telegraph operator. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 95 Tex. 2. 583. 1. Block — Synonymous with Square. — Harrison v. People, 19s 111. 466. Platted Ground. — In McGrew v. Kansas City, 64 Kan. 61, the court said: "According to the common understanding, a block is a portion of platted ground in a city, surrounded by streets, and the term is not ordinarily applied to a tract of unplatted land." Not a Subdivision of a Section. — A contract for a ouitclaim deed to property described as "lot 56, bl. 12, sec. 7, 39, 14," is too uncertain for specific performance. There is no such gov- ernmental subdivision of a section as a block. Gins v. Wilson, iq8 111. 44. 584. 1. See The Olinde v. Rodrigues, 91 Fed. Rep. 274; The Adula, 89 Fed. Rep. 356. 669 BLOOD STAINS. 587. I. Blood Stains as Evidence of Crime. — See note i. II. Admissibility of Evidence in Respect to Blood Stains — 1. Testimony of Ordinary Witnesses. — See note 2. 588. 2. Testimony of Experts — As to Whether Spots Were of Human or Animal Blood. — See note 1 . 3. Articles with Stains Thereon Resembling Blood. — See note 4. BLOW. — See note 6. 592. BOARD — Inn Distinguished from Boarding House, and Boarder from Guest. — See notes 1, 2, 3, 4. 593. A Board. — See note 2. 587. 1. Blood Stains as Evidence of Crime in General. — Com. v. Williams, 171 Mass. 461; Slate v. Brown, 168 Mo. 449. But where the state offers circumstantial evi- dence under an indictment for murder tending to show that deceased met his death by choking at the hands of the defendants, evidence in be- half of the defense that certain stains or spots on the floor were .not blood stains is irrelevant and is properly excluded. Vaughn v. State, 130 Ala. 18. 2. Testimony of Ordinary Witnesses as to Ex- istence of Blood Stains. — Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237; People v. Burgess, 153 N. Y. 561; State v. Henry, 51 W. Va. 283. Compare Tay- lor v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 148. In State v. Rice, 7 Idaho 762, it was held that the assistance of chemistry and the testi- mony of expert witnesses are not necessary to show the existence of blood, owing to the familiarity of all persons competent to testify as witnesses with its appearance, and it is only in cases where it is necessary to distinguish be- tween the blood of a human being and that of the inferior animals that such expert evidence is necessary. Weight of Evidence. — State v. Henry, 5 1 W. Va. 283. 58§. 1, Expert Testimony as to Whether Stains Were of Human or Animal Blood, — State v. Rice, 7 Idaho 762 ; State v. Martin, 47 S. Car. 67. Thus, where a physician testified on a trial under an indictment for murder that he had had considerable experience in examining blood spots, and had. examined the defendant's leg- gings which were worn by him on the day of the homicide, it is competent for such witness to testify that the stains found on the leggings looked like blood stains. White v. State, 133 Ala. 122. 4. Clothing with Spots Thereon Resembling Blood. — State v. Henry, 51 W. Va. 283. A Board from the floor of a house with stains thereon supposed to be blood stains is admis- sible in evidence, and the fact that it was taken from the floor nine or ten months after the homicide will not affect the competency of the evidence. State v.- Martin, 47 S. Car. 67. 6. Blowing Up — Insurance Policy. — Where a policy of insurance provided that the com- pany should not be liable for any loss caused by " blowing up of buildings," and plate glass was broken by the explosion of gas generated from gasoline in use in the building, it was held that the damage was not the result of " blow- ing up of a building " within the meaning of the policy. Vorse v. Jersey Plate Glass Ins. Co., 119 Iowa 555. 592. 1. Meacham v. Galloway, 102 Tenn. 424, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 592. 2. Liability. — See Meacham v. Galloway, 102 Tenn. 424. 3. Matter of Brewster, (County Ct.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 689; Metzger v. Schnabel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 698. 4. See Metzger v. Schnabel, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 698. 593. 2. Double Meanings — Board of Educa- tion. — ■ Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554. 670 BOARDS OF HEALTH. By W. H. Crow. 597. n. ORGANIZATION — 1. In General. — See note i. Liberal Construction in Favor of Boards. — See note 2. 598. 3. State and Local Boards. — See note i. To Municipal and Local Boards. — See note 2. 599. III. Extent and Limitations of Powers — 1. Enactment of Laws and Ordinances. — See note 3. 600. See note 2. Must Be Confined to Sanitary and Police Regulations. — See note 4. 597. 1. Police Power. — An act of a board of health in pursuance of a state statute in re- quiring vaccination of citizens, under penalty of . a fine of five dollars, was held to be valid, and the city could recover for noncompliance ; the statute being a lawful exercise of the police power. Com. v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242. 2. Presumption of Legality of Existence. — Where an act provided that three out of five members of the board of health should, if practi- cable, be registered physicians, it was held that the provision should not be taken to prohibit the organization of such boards with more than three physicians as members. State v. Kohnke, 106 La. 420. See also People"!/. Williamson, 135 Cal. 415. Acts Presumed Valid — Indiana. — Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 130, 80 Am. St. Rep. 19s, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 597 ; Monroe v. Bluffton, 31 Ind. App. 269. Iowa. — State v. Kirby, 120 Iowa 26. Massachusetts. — McKenna v. Eaton, 182 Mass. 346, 94 Am. St. Rep. 661. Minnesota. — ■ State v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353, 91 Am. St. Rep. 351. New Hampshire. — Whidden v. Cheever, 69 N. H. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 154. New Jersey. — La Porta v. Board of Health, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 115. Utah. — State v. Board of Education, 21 Utah 415, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 597. 598. 1. State Boards —Various Statutory Pro- visions — Indiana. — Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 130, 80 Am. St. Rep. 195. Ohio. — State v. Massillon, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 249. Tennessee. — State v. King, (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 314. Vermont. — Nay v. Underhill, 71 Vt. 66. Wisconsin. — State v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 60 Am. St. Rep. 123. 2. Municipal and Local Boards. — See Bra- man v. New London, 74 Conn. 695 ; Henderson County Board of Health v. Ward, 107 Ky. 477; Matter of Board of Health, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 236; People v. Scott, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 131, affirmed 57 N. Y. App. Div. 630; Matter of Rensselaer, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 3I Misc. (N. Y.) 512; Deysher v. Reading, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 611. 599. 3. Powers to Make Regulations and Ordinances — United States. — California Re- duction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 29 ; Wong Wai v. Wil- liamson, 103 Fed. Rep. 1. Delaware. — Hartman v. Wilmington, 1 Marv. (Del.) 215. Indiana. — Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 130, 80 Am. St. Rep. 195, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 599. Iowa. — ■ Warner v. Stebbins, 1 1 1 Iowa 86 ; State v., Kirby, 120 Iowa 26. Kentucky. — Hengehold v. Covington, 108 Ky. 752- Minnesota. — State v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353, 91 Am. St. Rep. 351. New Jersey. — Morford v. Board of Health, 61 N. J. L. 386 ; La Porta v. Board of Health, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 115. New York. — Cartwright v. Cohoes, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 69, affirmed 165 N. Y. 631 ; People v. Vandecarr, 175 N. Y. 440. Pennsylvania. — ■ Com. v. Yost, 197 Pa. St. 171. South Dakota. — Glover v. Board of Educa- tion, 14 S. Dak. 143, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 599. Tennessee. — Allen v. Dekalb County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 61 S. W. Rep. 291. Utah. — State v. Board of Education, 21 Utah 415, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 599. Washington. — State v. Sharpless, 3 1 Wash. 191, 96 Am. St. Rep. 893. Wisconsin. — Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983. Bight to Turn Off Water Supply.— A board of health, empowered by statute to regulate the plumbing in buildings, has no right to turn off the water supply of a citizen who fails to com- ply with its ordinances, there being a statutory penalty on prosecution of the board for such noncompliance. Johnston v. Belmar, 58 N. J. Eq. 3S4- 609. 2. State v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 1263. 4. Must Not Exceed Jurisdiction. — A board of health cannot, under pretext of abating a nuisance, enter into the domain of public im- provements and construction. Haag v. Mt. Vernon, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 366. 671 600-601 BOARDS OF HEALTH. Vol. IV. 600. Must Not Ba Inconsistent with Constitution and Laws of State. — See notes 5, 6. 601. Publication of Regulation. — See note 1. 2. Abatement of Nuisances — a. In General. — See note 2. Summary Action — Notice. — See note 3. Specifying Manner of Abatement. — See note 4. 600. 5. Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 Fed. Rep. 1. Constitutionality of Inspection Fee. — A fee placed by the city on laundries for compensa- tion of inspectors was held to be a proper health law and constitutional, not taking prop- erty without due process of law. New Or- leans v. Kee, 107 La. 762. 6. Must Be Seasonable — United States. — Jew Ho v. Williamson, 103 Fed. Rep. 10; Cali- fornia Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 29. District of Columbia. — U. S. v. Ross, 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241. Iowa. — State v. Kirby, 120 Iowa 26. Minnesota. — State v. Zimmerman, 86 Minn. 353, 91 Am. St. Rep. 351. Mississippi. — Wilson v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 77 Miss. 714, 78 Am. St. Rep. 543. New Jersey. — Morford v. Board of Health, 61 N. J. L. 386. New York. — Cartwright v. Cohoes, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 69, affirmed 165 N. Y. 631. See also People v. Vandecarr, 175 N. Y. 440. In People v. Van Fradenburgh, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 259, it was held that an order of a village board of health prohibiting the taking of fresh table and kitchen refuse from a sanitarium for consumptives into a village as food for hogs and fowl was invalid in the absence of evidence that such refuse was any more dangerous to the community than similar refuse from a hotel or other public house. Where by statute the health officers are re- quired to examine premises and supervise the proper cleansing and fumigation of privy vaults, ' an ordinance charging persons engaged in such work for the supervision is legal ; but a charge for issuing the permit, intended to cover ex- pense of renovating privies, which should prop- erly fall upon property owners, cannot be law- fully placed on persons licensed to do the work. Toledo v. Buechele, 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 479, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 429. Vaccination. — r A regulation adopted by the state board of health requiring compulsory vaccination as a qualification for admission to the public schools was held to be unreasonable in the absence of a smallpox epidemic. State v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 60 Am. St. Rep. 123. So in Canada a regulation requiring em- ployers to see that their workmen do not enter any place of business without a vaccination cer- tificate is unreasonable. Montreal v. Garon, 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 363. But see State v. Board of Education, 21 Utah 415, holding a regulation excluding unvaccinated children from the public schools during a time of epidemic to be reasonable, and the exer- cise of the right delegated by the state to adopt such regulations was supported by the police power inherent in the state. See also Com. v. Smith, 9 Pa. Dist. 625; Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 130, 80 Am. St. Rep. 19s. Reasonableness a Question for Jury. — In an ac- tion against the city for the burning of plain- tiff's house as infected, during an epidemic of smallpox, the court held that the jury should pass on the question of the reasonable necessity for the destruction. Dallas v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 324. 601. 1. See People v. Vandecarr, 175 N. Y. 440. 2. Abatement of Nuisances. — Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609 ; State v. Jersey City, 55 N. J. Eq. 116; State v. Henzler, (N. J. 1898) 41 Atl. Rep. 228; Com. v. Yost, 197 Pa. St. 171, re- versing 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 323. Mode of Exercising Powers. — The act of or- dering abatement of a nuisance must be a formal action of the state board of health, and not the order of its secretary ; so the disobey- ance of such an order is not indictable. In re Yost, 14 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 25. Where the statute provides that all three members of the executive committee of a board of health must be present in order to make a valid order, an. order made by only two mem- bers is invalid. Wilson v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 77 Miss. 714, 78 Am. St. Rep. 543. Suit Must Be Brought in Name of Village. — Board of Health v. Magill, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 249. Preliminary Injunction. — Under a statute pro- viding in effect that the board of health may file a bill in chancery to enjoin the maintenance of any structures, adjoining a stream, likely to pollute it by drainage, and that on the estab- lishment of the fact of the wrongful main- tenance of such a structure the court shall abate it, the court has no jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction. Board of Health v. Summit, (N. J. 1903) 56 Atl. Rep. 125. 3. Hartman v. Wilmington, 1 Marv. (Del.) 215 ; Brown v. Narragansett Dist, 21 R. I. 503. 4. Mann v. Willey, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 169, affirmed 168 N. Y. 664. Board Directing Removal in Specific Names. — Under a statute authorizing the health commis- sioner to abate nuisances, " in such manner as he may deem expedient," the act of the commis- sioner in replacing a privy by a water-closet was held to be unwarranted. The court said : " No sanitary board or officer can be permitted, under the guise of a power to abate nuisances detrimental to health, ndt only to remove or abate the nuisance * * * but also to pro- ceed in a summary manner and cause new erections to be made, and new appliances, con- trivances and conveniences to be used and adopted at a large expense to the owner and far beyond what the exigencies of the par- ticular case may require." Eckhardt v. Buffalo, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 1, affirmed 156 N. Y. 658. A board of health cannot abate a polluted stream, conceded to be a public nuisance, by constructing a drain costing $10,000, and drain- ing an entire swamp, several hundred feet be- yond the property of the plaintiff. Haag v. Mt. Vernon, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 366. 672 Vol. IV. BOARDS OF HEALTH. 603-605 602. Exceeding Powers — Injunction. — See notes 2, 3, 4. b. Power to Conclusively Declare a Nuisance • — See notes 5, 7. 603. Quasi-judicial Power — Presumption. — See note 3. Under a Pennsylvania Statute. — See note 4. 604. in Massachusetts. — See note 2. c. NOTICE. — See note 3. Where Notice Required by Statute. — See note 4. 6©5. 3. Employment of Professional Aid. — See note 1. - General Bule. A board of health proceeding under a statute to abate as a nuisance the conditions of filth and disease existing in a tenement house can- not order the destruction of the premises if they can be rendered innoxious and sanitary by other means, or by ceasing their use for human habitation. Health Dept. v. Dassori, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 348. 608. 3, Ultra Vires Acts — Injunction. — Philadelphia v. Lyster, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 475. 3. Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609. See also Golden v. Health Dept., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 420. 4. Stone v. Heath, 179 Mass. 385; Egan v. Health Dept., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 431. The erection of a garbage crematory pur- suant to a contract with a city board of health will not be enjoined on the ground that the operation of the crematory will constitute a nuisance, where the contract expressly provides for a plant the operation of which shall not prove a nuisance. The question whether or not a nuisance will result can only be determined after the plant has been put into operation. Deysher v. Reading, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 611. 5. Cartwright v. Cohoes, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 69, affirmed 165 N. Y. 631. See also Harring- ton v. Board of Aldermen, 20 R. I. 233, dis- tinguished 21 R. I. 503; Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 083. 7. Power of Board to Conclusively Declare a Nuisance. — Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609 ; Stone v. Heath, 179 Mass. 385; Golden v. Health Dept., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 420; Smith v. Irish, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 220. An ordinance of the board of health of a city regulating the manner of building stables operates merely to protect those who conform to its provisions, and to impose on those who do not so conform the burden of showing that the particular structure is not a nuisance. Such an ordinance does not declare all erections not in accordance with its provisions to be nui- sances. Morford v. Board of Health, 61 N. J. L. 386. 603. 3. In Rhode Island the order of a town council, proceeding under a statute em- powering it to declare and abate a nuisance, is not appealable ; such proceeding is intended to be summary, and the statute contemplates prompt and vigorous action. Brown v. Narragansett Dist., 21 R. I. 503. In New York the statute prescribes that the effect of an order of the board shall be of prima facie legality, imposing " upon persons who question the orders of the board of health in such cases the duty of establishing that the facts upon which they were based do not exist, or that the orders themselves are beyond the authority given to the board by the law." i Supp. E. of L,— 43 ^73 Golden v. Health Dept., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 420. 4. Pennsylvania Statute.— See Adams v. Ford, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. 604, 2. Stone v. Heath, 179 Mass. 38s, holding that under a statute conferring on tical boards of health power to abate a nuisance, an order of abatement cannot be restrained by in- junction. 3. Necessity of Notice. — Gaines v. Waters, 64 Ark. 609 ; Hartman v. Wilmington, r Marv. (Del.) 215; Chase v. Middleton, 123 Mich. 647; Eckhardt v. Buffalo, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 1, affirmed 156 N. Y. 658. 4. Where the Statute Requires Notice. — Fay- ette v. Greenleaf, (County Ct.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 352. 605. 1. Power to Employ Professional Aid — Liability for Compensation. — Bell County v. Blair, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 1104; Zimmer- man v. Cheboygan County, 133 Mich. 494; Board of Health v. Renville County, 89 Minn. 402 ; Rockaway Tp. v. Morris County, 68 N. J. L. 16; Matter of Plattsburgh, 157 N. Y. 78; Allen v. Dekalb County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 61 S. W. Rep. 291. See also Monroe v. Bluffton, 31 Ind. App. 269. A county court in Kentucky has the power, in the case of resignation of all the members of the county board of health, to appoint a com- mittee to take charge of smallpox patients until vacancies in the board shall be filled. And such committee has the power to secure pro- fessional aid at a compensation, not arbitrary, but governed by value of the services. Hen- derson County Board of Health 0. Ward, 107 Ky. 477- Where Board Exceeds Its Authority. — See Jay County v. Fertich, 18 Ind. App. i. A board of health, having power by statute to employ a health officer, has no power to ap- point a sanitary inspector, and a person so appointed cannot recover from the city the com- pensation fixed by the board for his services. In re Kent, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 60 N. Y. Supp. 627. As Town Charges. — A health officer, actjng under a statute substituting a physician in each town to perform the duties and to have the powers formerly exercised by the board of health, has the power to employ assistants in maintaining quarantine, and the town will be liable for such services. Keefe v. Union, 76 Conn. 160. A physician appointed by a county board of health to take charge of a quarantine in a city, such appointment being approved by the city council, can recover from the city the value of his services. Blair v. Middlesboro, (Ky. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 1 6, 605-606 BOARDS OF HEALTH. Vol. IV. 605. 606. note 3. A Health Officer of the Board. — See note 2. Where Individual Concerned Is Able to Pay for Services Bendered. — See note 3. 4. Establishment of Quarantine and Erection of Hospitals. — See Hospitals. — See note 5. Bights as to Private Residences. — See note 6. Action by Town Against County. — Bardstown u. Nelson County, (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 169; Durand v. Shiawassee County, 132 Mich. 448; Louriston v. Swift County, 89 Minn. 91; Comstock v. Le Sueur County, 92 Minn. 88 ; Iosco v. Waseca County, (Minn. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 734. Compare Schmidt v. Musca- tine County, 120 Iowa 267. Member of Board as Physician. — A physician who is a health officer of a city, and who re- ceives a regular salary as such, cannot recover for medical services during a quarantine, such services being included in his regular duties, for which his salary is paid. Reynolds v. Mt. Vernon, 164 N. Y. 592, affirming 26 N. Y. App. Div. 581. A health officer, called into consultation by another physician to determine whether a dis- ease is contagious, performs his regular duty imposed by the statute, and he is not entitled to the extra compensation granted by another sec- tion of the act for attending infectious cases. Browne v. Livingston County, 126 Mich. 276. In Minnesota a town board of health, formed under the provisions of the general statutes, one of whose members is a practicing physi- cian, may employ such physician to act for the , board in all matters requiring such services. Board of Health v. Renville County, 89 Minn. 402. See also Cedar Creek Tp. v. Wexford County, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 409. Power to Employ Persons to Hake Examination of Premises. — Under a statute authorizing a board of health to suppress nuisances under the health laws and to engage persons to carry out its orders, such board has the power to em- ploy persons to examine and report on the con- dition of premises, and the municipality will be liable for their compensation. Kent v. North Tarrytown, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 502. Statute Requiring Auditing. — Under a stat- ute providing that bills contracted at the in- stance of the board of health shall be audited by the board, no recovery can be allowed with- out showing such auditing. Cooke v. Custer County, 13 Okla. 11. Seasonable Compensation in Absence of Agreed Terms. — In the absence of any agreed compen- sation, made between the board and a physi- cian, or regulations touching upon charges, the physician will be entitled to recover the reason- able value of his services. Clement v. Lewis- ton, 97 Me. 95. See also Allen v. Dekalb County, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 61 S. W. Rep. 291. Liability Depends upon Existence of Valid Contract. — A physician employed by a person to attend his family, quarantined for scarlet fever, cannot recover compensation from the town in the absence of any contract for his services by the board of health. Pettengill v. Amherst, 72 N. H. 103. See also Congdon v. Nashua, 72 N. H. 468. Contract Must Be by Formal Action of Board. — . MSljn v. Montgomery County, 27 Ind, App, 98, $74 But see Pierce v. Gladwin County, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 1 1 32, where it was held that the hiring of the physician need not be by formal act of the board of health convened in regular meeting. An authorization by all the members of the board to go ahead and attend to the cases is sufficient. Compensation of Health Officer. — A health of- ficer appointed by the board to perform certain duties at a stated compensation cannot recover extra compensation for things done within the scope of those duties. Sloan v. Peoria, 106 111. App. 1 si. See also Reynolds v. Mt. Vernon, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 581, affirmed 164 N. Y. 592. 605. 2. Power of Health Officer of the Board. — Mankato v. Blue Earth County, 87 Minn. 425 ; Turner v. Toledo, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 196, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 627. A health officer empowered Dy ordinance to secure medical services cannot appoint himself to render such services at the expense of the city. Sloan v. Peoria, 106 111. App. 151. 3. Where Patient Able to Pay for the Services. — McKillop v. Cheboygan County, 116 Mich. 614. But see St. Johns v. Clinton County, m Mich. 609. See also Laurel County Ct. v. Pen- nington, 80 S. W. Rep. 820, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 124, holding that a physician cannot recover com- pensation from the county for services rendered to a person quarantined with infectious disease, if the statute makes the liability of the county dependent on the inability of the person treated to pay, without proving such inability. 606. 3. Quarantine Regulations. — Tweedy v Fremont County, 99 Iowa 721 ; Warner v. Stebbins, 1 1 1 Iowa 86 ; Hengehold v. Coving- ton, 108 Ky. 752; Highland v. Schulte, 123 Mich. 360 ; Browne v. Livingston County, 126 Mich. 276 ; Turner v. Toledo, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 196, is Ohio Cir. Ct. 627. A health commissioner has no power to estab- lish a quarantine station for smallpox patients so near a school as to be dangerous, and there- fore constituting a public nuisance. Thompson v. Kimbrough, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 350. Boards of Health to Control Pest House.— The authority of a county board of health to take charge of and care for those suffering from infectious disease necessarily implies the custody and charge of the county pest house. Henderson County Board of Health v. Ward, 107 Ky. 477. 6. Hospitals. — Turner v. Toledo, 8 Ohio Cir. Dec. 196, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 627. 6. Private Besidences. — Where a health officer took possession of the plaintiff's unoccupied dwelling and used it as a pest house, this was held a proper act; and not necessary to be done by express authority of the board of health. Brown v. Pierce County, 28 Wash. 345. As Sustaining General Quarantine Laws.— The state board of health of Louisiana, exer- cising very , general powers by virtue of the statute, can prohjbjf ^e entrance (ntg the. itgtf Vol. IV. BOARDS OF HEALTH— BONA FIDE. 607-615 607. 608. 609. 611. 613. 615. IV. Liability of Board. — See note i. Errors of Judgment. — See note 3. Wrongful Acts — Negligence. — See note 4. V. Liability of Municipality. — See notes i, 4. BOAT. — See note 1. BODILY HEIES. — See note 2. [BODILY INJURIES. — See note 2a.] BODY. — See note 1. BONA FIDE. — See note 3. of immigrants from a foreign country, even though they or the place from which they came be not affected by disease. Compagnie Francaise, etc., v. State Board of Health, 51 La: Ann. 645, 72 Am. St. Rep. 458, affirmed 186 U. S. 380. 607. 1. Liability in Tort. — Compagnie Francaise, etc., ■v. State Board of Health, 51 La. Ann. 645, 72 Am. St. Rep. 458, affirmed 186 U. S. 380. Statutory Immunity. — In New York, by sec- tion 599 of the Consolidation Act (Laws 1882, c. 410), it is provided that " no member, officer, or agent of said board of health and no person (but only the board itself) shall be sued or held to liability for any act done or omitted by either person aforesaid (in good faith and with ordinary discretion) on behalf of or under said board, or pursuant to its regulations, ordi- nances, or the health laws." See Sbarboro v. Health Dept., 26 N. Y. App. Div. 177. 3. Errors of Judgment. — Whidden v. Cheever, 69 N. H. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 154. 4. Whidden v. Cheever, 69 N. H. 142, 76 Am. St. Rep. 154. So a health officer, destroying wrongfully the plaintiff's cattle which the jury found not to be diseased, and therefore, not a nuisance, will be liable in damages, when such destruction was the result of summary action without notice. Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983. 608. 1. Municipality Not Liable. — Murray v. Grass Lake, 125 Mich. 6, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 607 ; Gilboy v. Detroit, 115 Mich. 121; Verdon v. Bowman, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 229 ; Lowe v. Con- roy, 120 Wis. 151, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983. But see Clayton v. Henderson, 103 Ky. 228, in which the court held that the establishment by a board of health of a pest house within one mile of the city limits, contrary to a statute of the state, made the city liable for dam- ages to any person suffering from contagion contracted from the nuisance. A Municipality Is Liable on Contracts made by its board of health. Deysher v. Reading, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 611. 4. Chase v. Middleton, 123 Mich. 647. 609. 1. A Steam Dredge and Amalgamator used for mining purposes though called a boat is not such within the meaning of an attach- ment statute. Dietrich v. Martin, 24 Mont. 147. 61 1 . 2. Bodily Heirs. — The phrase bodily heir is a well-established technical term, and is 675 defined in And. Law Diet. 508 as "an heir begotten of the body ; a lineal descendant." The words " children," " issue," and " heirs," are not synonymous terms. Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47. ' Synonymous with Heirs of the Body. — Turner v. Hause, 199 111. 464; Kyner v. Boll, 182 111. 171; Stratton v. McKinnie, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 636 ; Miller v. Ensminger, 182 Mo. 195; Marsh v. Griffin, 136 N. Car. 333. 2a. Bodily Injuries — Personal Injuries. — In Terre Haute Electric R. Co. v. Lauer, 21 Ind. App. 475, the court said : " The standard dictionaries define the word bodily to mean, pertaining to or concerning the body; of or belonging to the body or to the physical con- stitution ; not mental, but corporeal ; and the word ' personal ' as pertaining to the person or bodily form. The expression ' great personal injury ' has been said to be equivalent to the expression ' great bodily harm.' 2 Abbott's Diet. 273. A personal injury is an injury to the person of an individual, as an assault is distinguished from an injury to one's property. 2 Rap. & Law. Law Diet. 955. If we admit, as claimed by appellant, that the terms ' personal injuries ' and bodily injuries are not ' neces- sarily equivalent,' yet the jury could only have understood from instruction fifteen given that the appellee was entitled to recover only for mental suffering growing out of the bodily in- juries he received." Impairment of Vision may properly be proved under an allegation that "the plaintiff sustained serious and painful internal and other bodily injuries," as bodily injuries do not neces- sarily mean injuries to the trunk or main part of the human form as distinguished from the limbs or head. Quirk v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 467. 612. 1. Body of the County — Jury and Jury Trial. — State v. Bollin, 10 Wyo. 439 ; People v. Dunn, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 139. Body of Estate — Trusts. — See Meldon v. Dev- lin, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 146. 615. 3. Bona Fide Purchaser. — See O'Con- nor v. Gertgens, 85 Minn. 481 ; Wilkins v. Mc- Corkle, (Tenn. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 834. Bona Fide Possessor. — Lindt v. Uihlein, 116 Iowa 48. Bona Fides of the Talcing — Larceny. — In Peo- ple v. Slayton, 123 Mich. 397, the court said: " By bona fides I mean the good faith of the taking, — whether with a felonious intejij: 6. Bailees for Hire. — See note 7. 718. 2. In Respect to Receiving and Driving Logs Tendered. — See note 1. [BORDER. — See note 4a. J lon-Gipson Lumber Co., 78 Minn. 438 ; Boyle v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153 ; O'Brien v. Glasow, 72 Minn. 135; East Hoquiam Boom, etc., Co. v. Neeson, 20 Wash. 142; Gray's Harbor Boom Co. v. McAmmant, 21 Wash. 465. See also Washougal River Imp., etc., Co. v. Skamania Logging Co., 23 Wash. 89. 716. 4. Lien. — See Doyle v. Pelton, 134 Mich. 398, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 475 ; E. W. Bachus Lumber Co. v. Scanlon-Gipson Lumber Co., 78 Minn. 438. See also Washougal River Imp., etc., Co. v. Skamania Logging Co., 23 Wash. 89 ; East Hoquiam Boom, etc., Co. v. Neeson, 20 Wash. 142. A lien, however, does not attach to logs merely because they were taken past the booms of the company claiming the lien bv the owner. Gray's Harbor Boom Co. v. McAmmant, 21 Wash. 465. Assumpsit for Services. — O'Brien v. Glasow, 72 Minn. 135. 717. 3. When Sight to Compensation At- taches. — Weymouth v. Beatham, 93 Me. 525 ! Doyle v. Pelton, 134 Mich. 398, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 475. Driving the Logs to a Point Where They Can Be Conveniently Separated is all that the law re- quires to give to the party doing the driving a right to compensation. Boyle v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153. 4. No Lien Where Owner Driving His Logs. — See Mullen Penobscot Log-Driving Co., 90 Me. 555 ; Washougal River Imp., etc., Co. v. Ska- mania Logging Co., 23 Wash. 89. 6. Not Common Carriers. — Crane v. Fry, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 281, citing 4 Am. anp Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 717. 6. Not Insurers. — Crane v. Fry, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 278, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 717. Bridge Damaged by Floating Logs. — - Where one negligently allows logs to be sent down a stream, thereby damaging a bridge, and the injury to the bridge could have been averted, he is liable. Cue v. Breeland, 78 Miss. 864. 7. Contraot a Bailment for Hire. — Crane v. Fry, (C. C. A.) 126 Fed. Rep. 278, citing 4 Am. .and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 717; Parks v. Libby, 92 Me. 133 ; Holway v. Machias Boom, 90 Me. 125 ; Palmer v. Penobscot Lum- bering Assoc, 90 Me. 193. Loss by Overloading Boom. — Where a loss was caused by the defendant overloading the boom of the plaintiff the latter was held not to be liable therefor and was allowed to recover com- pensation for services according to the con- tract. Hebard v. Shaw, 123 Mich. 514. Liability for Negligence. — > Where one under a contract for logging assumes control of the work he is liable for negligence. Sullivan v. Ross, 124 Mich. 287. 7 IS. 1. Duty as to Receiving and Driving. — Mullen u. Penobscot Log-Driving Co., 90 Me. 555- ia. The word border means " to approach," " to come near to," " to verge." It conveys the idea of immediate proximity. Handy v. Maddox, 85 Md. 553 685 BOROUGHS. 731. 733. 733. Ey J. E. Brady. I. Definition and History — in united states. — See note i. II. Creation — Special Act. — See note 5. Incorporation by Courts — Pennsylvania. — See notes 2, 3. Statute of Incorporation Construed Strictly — Record Must Show Performance of Conditions. — ■ See note 5. 734. Notice of Proceedings to Incorporate — What Must State. — See note 3. Defect in Published Notice of Application — How Cured. — See note 5- Facts Warranting Incorporation. — See note 6. III. Boundaries — 1. In General — Two or More Distinct yuiages. — See note 8. 721. 1. Applied to Incorporated Municipali- ties Only. — See State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 76 Minn. 473, citing 4 Am. and Lng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 721. An Incorporated Borough Is Included Within the Word " Town " as used in the New Jersey stat- ute, providing for the incorporation of cities. Stout v. Glen Ridge, 59 N. J. L. 201. A Borough Is a Public Municipal Corporation, and has within its sphere all the powers neces- sary for its corporate existence. Ridley Park v. Citizens Electric Light, etc., Co., 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 395, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 615. 722. 6. Constitutionality of Acts. — Though the statute under which a borough was created has been declared unconstitutional in a pro- ceeding against another borough existing under the same statute, that fact has no bearing as to the de facto existence of the borough in an action against its officers to restrain them from tearing down a building. Coast Co. v. Spring Lake, 56 N. J. Eq. 615. 723. 2. Delegation of Powers. — In proceed- ings for incorporation the Court of Quarter Sessions may not delegate its power of hearing and passing upon the evidence to a master ap- pointed by the court. In re Wayne, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 533, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 363. Annexation to City. — The Court of Quarter ' Sessions may determine whether three-fifths of the taxable inhabitants have signed a petition to annex the borough to a city. West New Castle Annexation, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 33. 3. Application for Incorporation, — In re Old Forge Borough, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 185, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 462. Contents of Petition. — The petition must con- tain a detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed borough. Riverton Borough, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 63, 6 Pa. Dist. 685. Minors Holding Property as Heirs are not counted in ascertaining whether a majority of the freeholders have signed the petition for incorporation. Alliance Borough Case, 7 Northam. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 235. Jurisdiction once having been obtained by the court it cannot be ousted by a remonstrance of the petitioner. In re Old Forge Borough, 5 Lack. Leg, N, (Pa.) 185, 7 Pel, Cq, Rep, (Pa.) 4$8< 686 Incorporation Will Not Be Refused because the proposed borough includes a large tract of un- occupied land. In re Rouseville, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 262, affirmed 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 126. Vacating Decree. — -A decree incorporating a borough may be vacated by the Court of Quar- ter Sessions during the same term at which it was made. In re Herndon, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 127. But an appeal from a decree incorporating a borough may not be taken two years after it was entered, where in the meantime obliga- tions have been entered into and a school dis- trict has been organized by the borough. Mor- ton Borough, 8 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 118, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 466. 5. Record Must Show Performance of Condition. — In re Pyne, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 124. 724. 3. Notice of Proceedings. — • See In re Linton, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 36, 40 W. N. C. (Pa.) 525- 5. Defect in Published Notice of Petition. — Although the objecting, parties had notice them- selves they may still object that others did not have notice. Pyne Borough, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 124. 6. Facts Warranting Incorporation, — Smithfield Borough, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 583, 30 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 433 ; In re Alliance, 7 Northam. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 396 ; West Homestead Borough Case, 31 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 172. The court should be satisfied of the neces- sity of incorporation before it is justified in making a decree incorporating a borough. Pyne Borough, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 124. In Wall Borough Case, 30 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 308, it was held that a petition would be refused where it appeared that the town was small and the land to be included uneven and rough, the greater part being included for pur- poses of taxation. The Increase of Township Taxes which will fol- low the incorporation of a borough is not a sufficient ground for an exception to the in- corporation. Cross Roads Borough, 13 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 85. 8. Separate Groups of Honses between which is land not used for dwelling purposes may be incorporated into a borough, /jj re SwoverYille, 1 a Pa, guper, Ct, n8, \ ol. IV. BOROUGHS. 795-728 735. 736. 737. note 2. 738. Extent of Territory — How Determined — Judicial Discretion. — See note I. 2. Annexation of Territory. — See nqte 3. Description of Boundaries — Courses and Distances. — See note 4. What Petition for Annexation Must State. — See note 5. 3. Division into Wards. — See note 6. Manner of Frooedure in Dividing Boroughs into Wards. — See note I . IV. Powers, Duties, and Liabilities — 1. In General. — See note 4. Incorporation of Borough into City. — See note I . Adjustment of Liabilities of a Borough Accruing Prior to Its Erection. — See 2. Governing Bodies. — See note 6. Vacation of Seat — Removal of Councilman. — See note 2. Duty of Burgess to Sign Ordinances. — See note 7. 725. 1. Extent of Territory Within Judicial Discretion. — In re Old Forge Borough, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 185, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 462; In re Alliance, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 179; In re Rouseville, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 126. Lands Included. — Land will not be included within a borough for the reason alone that the land is owned by a railroad and the borough may at a future time desire to bridge over the jiroperty. Riverton Borough, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 539. 6 P a - Dist. 29. An Objection to the Inclusion of Farm Lands within the limits of a borough must be raised by the owners \oi the land. Cross Roads Borough, 13 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 85. 3. Annexation Proceedings Will Not Be Set Aside After Approval by the court if the statu- tory requirements have been complied with. Edwardsville Borough, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 339. 4. Description of Boundaries — Courses and Dis- tances. — In re Moosic, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 353- 5. Allegation as to Character of Petitioners. — A petition is not invalid though it refers to the petitioners as " taxables " instead of taxable in- habitants. West New Castle Annexation, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 33. 6. The Court of Quarter Sessions is vested with jurisdiction to constitute a borough, annexed to a city, a new ward. Morrellville Borough An- nexation, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 257. Petition — Signatures — Beview. — The peti- tion should be signed by at least twenty free- holders ; but the same number of signers is not necessary in the case of a petition for a re- view, since the court might of its own motion order a review without any petition. Freeland Borough, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 403. 726. 1. Not Necessary to State Specific Num- ber of Wards, — In re South Ward Div., 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 428, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 387, 13 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 15. Invalid Report. — A report should be set aside where it appears that the commissioners held no meeting within the borough and did not visit the land to be incorporated. Sharpsburg Borough Cas, 30 Pittsb. Leg. J. N. S. (Pa.) 167, 13 York Leg. Rec. 156. 4. Application of Borough Funds. — In England the borough fund of a municipal corporation, where there is no surplus, cannot be applied lawfully, either under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, or of the l9W«$ Fttflfe Ast 8? iSfSi t9 Indemnify the chief constable of the borough for costs in- curred by him in appearing by counsel as a party to an appeal to Quarter Sessions, by the holder of a license for the selling of intoxicat- ing liquors, from the refusal of the licensing justices to grant a renewal of the license. Query, whether if there be a surplus, it can be applied legally to the payment of such costs? Tynemouth v. Atty.-Gen., (1899) A. C. 293, affirming (1898) 1 Q. B. 604. 727. 1. A Local Statute Is Not Repealed by the incorporation of a part of a township into a borough. Com. v. Ayers, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 352. 2. In New Jersey, where a borough is incor- porated out of a township, its liability for debts of the township contracted previous to incor- poration is provided for by Laws N. J., 1896, p. 270. Lodi Tp. v. Hackensack Imp. Commis- sion, 60 N. J. Eq. 229. 6. In New Jersey the general government of boroughs is provided for by statute (P. L. 1897, p. 285). Smith v. Hightstown, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 901. Quorum of Council. — Members of a borough council, present at a meeting, though not vot- ing, are to be counted for the purpose of mak- ing a quorum. Com. u. Schubmehl, 3 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 186. Under the English Bankruptcy Act of 1883, a bankrupt is disqualified, not only for being elected to, but also for holding or exercising, the office of borough councilor. An informa- tion in the nature of a quo warranto lies to oust a bankrupt from holding or exercising such office. Rex v. Beer, (1903) 2 K. B. 693. Notice of Adjourned Meeting. — Councilmen are not entitled to notice of an adjourned meet- ing of a borough council. Com. v. Fleming, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 404. 72§. 2. Disqualification of Councilman. — It was held that a councilman who, being disquali- fied to hold ' office for nonpayment of a tax, resigned after paying the tax, might be ap- pointed to fill the vacancy. Com. v. Giles, 2 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 223. A Vacancy in the Council is filled by the council, not by the Court of Quarter Sessions. In re Strasburg, 16 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 191, 8 Pa. Dist. 544. 7. Acts Passed Over Voto of Burgess. — Where the veto of the burgess i3 not properly recorded 61? Galleway v, £ilmour, % Ps. pifl, gjg, 729-740 B0R0 UGHS — BO TTOMR K E TC. Vol. IV 739. Borough Auditors. — See note 3. 3. Streets and Sidewalks. — See note 7. 730. Notice. — See note 1. 4. Licenses and Taxes. — See note 3. 734. [BOTANICAL GARDEN. — See note i«.] BOTH. — See note 3. 735. BOTTLE. — See note 1. 729. 3. Compensation. — In England an elective auditor of a borough, holding under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, is not entitled to any remuneration for his services in auditing the accounts of the borough. Thomas v. Devonport, (1900) 1 Q. B. 16. 7. Liability for Condition of Streets. — Canfield v. East Stroudsburg, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 649 ; Brown v. Towanda, 24 Pa. buper. Ct. 378. Alleys. — The degree of care required in the case of streets is not called for in tne case of alleys. Musick v. Latrobe, 184 Pa. St. 375, 42 W. N. C. (Pa.) 209. 730. 1. Borough Entitled to Actual or Im- plied Notice, — Boyle v. Mahonoy City, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 195, affirmed 187 Pa. St. 1. See also Dutton v. Lansdowne, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 400, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 204, 44 W. N. C. (Pa.) 290J latent Defect. — A borough is not liable for an injury from a latent defect in a sidewalk. McClosky v. Dubois, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 181, 40 W. N. C. (Pa.) 214; Fitzpatrick v. Darby, 184 Pa. St. 645. 3. Power to Exact License Tees. — A borough in Pennsylvania has power to exact license fees from an electric light and power company for poles erected in its streets. Ridley Park v. Citizen's Electric Light, etc., Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 620 ; Lansdowne v. Citizens Electric Light, etc., Co., 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 399, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 620. 734. Is. " A Botanical Garden means, pri- marily, a collection of plants, shrubs, etc., that would assist in the acquisition and advance- ment of botanical knowledge, — not large quan- tities of flowering plants for merely ornamental purposes of the private grounds of a gentle- man's residence, but specimens, whether flower- ing, or ornamental, or otherwise, that would aid a botanist in imparting botanical knowledge." Per Rogers, J., in Pierce v. Brown University, 21 R. I. 392. 3. The Word Both Means Either, as used in a joint deed for the maintenance and support of the grantors so long as they both shall live. Greenbrier Bank v. Effingham, 31 W. Va. 267. 735. 1. Customs Duties. — Old bottles capa- ble of being used as bottles are not junk, but are properly assessed as bottles under the Tariff Act. Carberry v. U. S., 116 Fed. Rep. 773- BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA. By A. W. Varian. 737. I. DEFINITION — A Bottomry Contract. — See note 2. Respondentia Bond. — See note 3. II. Form, Requisites, and General Nature of the Contract — 1. General Principles — Construction — Presumption — Extrinsie Evidence. — See note 9. 738. What Law Determines. — See note 2. As Collateral Security. — See note 5. 739. Personal Liability of Owner. — - See note 2. 2. Maritime Risk. — See note 3. 740. 3. Maritime Interest. — See note 1. 737. 2. Davies v. Soelberg, '24 Wash. 308. A Dooument in Substance a Bottomry Bond is not invalid because it is called something else. The Haabet, (1899) P. 295, 81 L. T. N. S. 463- 3. Respondentia Bond. — See The Mauna Loa, 76 Fed. Rep. 829. 9. Liberally Construed. — O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S. 287. 73§. 2. What Law Governs. — Hanschell v. Swan, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 304. 6. Lender May Take Additional Security. — The Haabet, (1899) P- 295- A draft given to secure the same debt for nrhich a bottomry bond has been given does not mature until the safe arrival of the vessel. Davies v. Soelberg, 24 Wash. 308. 739. 2. No Personal Liability of Owner.— Davies v. Soelberg, 24 Wash. 308. If the Agreement Binds the Owner Personally. — See Hanschell v. Swan, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 304. Personal Liability in Event of Safe Arrival. — The Haabet, (1899) P. 295. 3. Marine Risk Essential. — The Haabet, (1899) P. 295, 81 L. T. N. S. 463. 740. 1. Maritime Interest Not Essential.— The Haabet, (1899) P. 295; Davies v, Soel- berg, 24 Wash. 308. Including a premium of ten per cent, of the Vol. IV. BO TTOMR Y, E TC. — BO UGHT. 741-749 741. IV. Bottomry by the Master — 2. Tinder What Circumstances Justi- fied. — See notes 6, 7. 743. 3. For What Purposes Justified. — See note 7. 744. 4. Bottomry of the Cargo. — See note 1 , He Hay Hypothecate the Cargo. - — See note 4. 745. VI. The Lender on Bottomry— 1. Who May Loan — consign*. — See note 3. 747. 3. Burden of Proof — Presumption — Shifting of Burden of Proof. — See note 1. note 6. 748. 749. VII. Repayment or Advances — 1. When Due and Payable. — See VIII. What Property Bound. — See note 6. Ship and Cargo Property of Different Penoni. — See note 9, Freight. — See note 3. BOUGHT. — See note 12. amount lent in the bond and providing for the payment of interest at eight per cent, on the whole amount will not invalidate the bond. The Northern Light, 106 Fed. Rep. 748. 741. 8. When Funds of Owner Available. — The Mauna Loa, jf, Fed. Rep. 829. 7. Funds on Owner's Credit. — The Mauna Loa, 76 Fed. Rep. 8zg. 742. 7. Bottomry Justified Only by Necessity. — Hanschell v. Swan, (Supm. Ct. Tr- T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 304; Davies v. Soelberg, 24 Wash. 308. 744. 1. See The Mauna Loa, 76 Fed. Rep. 829. 4. Master Should Communicate with Owner of Cargo.— See O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S. 287. 745. 3. Insurer. — The fact that the lenders themselves insured the risk does, not invalidate the bond. The Haabet, (1899) P. 295. 747. 1. Shifting of Burden of Proof. — See The Northern Light, 106 Fed. Rep. 748. 6. A Stipulation in a Bottomry Bond that should the ship put into 1 port of refuge to repair the loan would become due does not invalidate the bond if the parties contemplated a maritime risk. The Haabet, (1899) P. 295, 81 L. T. N. S. 463- 74S. 6. Damages Recovered by Owner on Ac count of Loss. — See O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S. 287. 9. Hypothecation of Cargo — Ship and Cargo Property of Different Owners.-" The Chioggia, (1898) P. 1, 77 L. T. N. S. 472. 749. 8. The Chioggia, (1898) P. 1, 77 L. T. N. S. 472. 12. Bought and Paid for — - Indian Laws. — In construing the Act of Congress of July 28, iggi, providing that lands occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for the same may be leased under the authority of the secretary of the interior, the court said : " Reflections upon the history and policy of the government in its dealings with the Indians go far to sup- port the position that Congress did not intend to limit the words ' bought and paid for ' to lands which had been actually paid for in cash, or to lands which had been patented, and the title thereto actually parted with, by the United States. It was doubtless the intention of Con- gress that the statute and those words should apply to all lands which had been purchased by the Indians, either by the payment of money, or exchange or surrender of the possession of other property." Strawberry Valley Cattle Co. ■v. Chipman, 13 Utah 454. 1 Supp. E. of L. — 44 689 BOUGHT AND SOLD NOTES. 751. I. Definition and Form — Bought and sold Notes. — See note i. 752. III. Notes as Evidence to Satisfy the Statute of Frauds — where Notes Agree and There Is No Signed Entry in Broker's Book. — See note 3. 753. Notes Differing or Imperfect Where There Is No Signed Entry. — See note 2. A Sere Immaterial Difference. — See note 6. 754. See note 1. BOULEVARD. — See note 3. BOUND. — See note 4. 751. 1. Definition. — Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Brokerage Co., 213 111. 561, quot- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 751, the court saying, however, that "some authorities hold that the sold note is delivered to the buyer and the bought note to the seller ;" Murray v. Doud, 167 111. 368, 59 Am. St. Rep. 297 ; Reid v. Alaska Packing Co., 43 Oregon 429, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 751. 752. 3. Notes May Satisfy Statute of Frauds. — Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Broker- age Co., 213 111. 561 ; Murray v. Doud, 167 111. 368, 59 Am. St. Rep. 297, holding further that interest was recoverable as damages for breach of the contract ; Reid v. Alaska Packing Co., 43 Oregon 429. 753. 2. Material Variance Between Notes. — Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Brokerage Co., 213 111. 561, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 753. Party's Own Signature to Bought Note. — See Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Brokerage Co., 213 111. 561. 6. Mere Immaterial Variance. — Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Brokerage Co., 213 111. 561, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 753. 754. 1. Material Variance. — Eau Claire Canning Co. v. Western Brokerage Co., 213 111. 561, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 754. 3. A Boulevard Is a Street or Highway within the meaning of an act making municipalities liable for defects in streets, etc. Burridge v. Detroit, 117 Mich. 557. See also West Chi- cago v. Farber, 171 111. 146. Speedway a Boulevard. — " The word boule- vard, as now commonly used in this common- wealth, has not a very definite meaning. It sometimes means little more than a wide street or highway. In the Century Dictionary it is said : ' The name is now sometimes extended to any street or walk encircling a town, and also to a street which is of especial width, is given a park-like appearance by reserving spaces at the sides or centre for shade trees, flowers, seats, and the like, and is not used for heavy teaming.' It seems to us that the ' speedway ' may properly be said to be a boulevard, within the meaning of that word in the conditions of the deeds." Per Field, C. J., in Howe v. Lowell, 171 Mass. 575. 4. Bound in the Sense of Concluded. — See Finch v. Finch, 131 N. Car. 271. 690 BOUNDARIES. By Briscoe Baldwin Clark. 759. II. Description — 1. Methods of Description — The statute of Frauds. — See note 3. 760. 2. Elements of Description — a. In General — The Relative value of the Various Elements. — See notes 4, 5- 701. When the Calls Are False, Mistaken, or Repugnant, — See note I. All the Elements Need Not Be Employed. — See note 2. b. Monuments — (i) General Principles — Defined. — See note 3. Conflicting Monuments. — See note 4. 702, Monument Corresponding with Courses and Distances. — See note I . Beginning Corner. — See note 4. 759. 3. Sheaf er v. Mitchell, 109 Tenn. 181, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 759- 760. 4. Reason for Preference as Between Several Elements of Description — United States. — Ulraan v. Clark, 100 Fed. Rep. 180 ; Belding v. Hebard, 103 Fed. Rep. 532, 43 C. C. A. 296 ; Watkins v. King, 118 Fed. Rep. 524, 55 C. C. A. 290. California. — Miller v. Grunsky, (Cal. igoi) 66 Pac. Rep. 858; Dutra v. Pereira, 135 Cal. 320. Georgia. — Hammond v. George, 116 Ga. 792, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 760. Maryland. — Long v. Ragan, 94 Md. 462. Pennsylvania. — Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Beaver Lumber Co., 203 Pa. St. 544 ; Green v. Schrack, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 26; Richardson v. McKeesport, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 199. South Carolina. — Connor v. Johnson, 53 S. Car. 90. 5. Rule Not Inflexible. — Connor v. Johnson, 53 S. Car. 90, 59 S. Car. 115; Huff v. Crawford, 89 Tex. 214. 761. 1. Ulmani/. Clark, 100 Fed. Rep. 180; Belding v. Hebard, 103 Fed. Rep. 532, 43 C. C. A. 296; Hammond v. George, 116 Ga. 792, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 761 ; Sellman v. Sellman, (Tex. Civ. App. '903) 73 S. W. Rep. 48. 2. All the Elements of Description Not Neces- sary — Designation by Particular Name. — Robin- son v. Atkins, 105 La. 790; Carter v. Clark, 92 Me. 225 (description held sufficiently certain) ; Sheafer v. Mitchell, 109 Tenn. 181, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 759- Where a Dwelling House Situated in a Compara- tively Large Tract of land is leased merely by description of street number, it has been held that the nearest fence or hedge may ordinarily be presumed to be the boundary, unless the con- trary is made to appear. Okie v. Person, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 170. 3. Comer of Adjoining Landowner may con- stitute a monument. Abbey v. McPherson, 1 Kan. App. 177. Boundary Line of Another Tract Is a monu- ment. Miller v. Grunsky, (Cal. 1901) 66 Pac. Rep. 858. A Witness or Bearing Tree is not an estab- lished corner, but merely a designated object, from which in connection with the field notes, the location of the corner may be ascertained. Stadin v. Helin, 76 Minn. 496. 4. Conflicting Monuments — Preference — Gen- eral Rule. — Ulman v. Clark, 100 Fed. Rep. 180; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Crabtree, 113 Ky. 922 (course should be taken which will satisfy most of the calls for natural monu- ments) ; Cincinnati Southern R. Co. v. Shakers Soc, 78 S. W. Rep. 130, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1339; Bell County Land, etc., Co. v. Hendrickson, 68 S. W. Rep. 842, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 371 ; Hitchcock v. Southern Iron, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 588 ; Utley v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 906; Cox v. Finks, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 95; Morgan ■75 N. Y. 475, affirming (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 701. And see the title More or Less, vol. 20, p. 873. 2. Leading Rule — Effect Should Be Given to the Intention of Parties — Connecticut. — Post Hill Imp. Co. v. Brandegee, 74 Conn. 338. Iowa. — Dows Real Estate, etc., Co. v. Emer- son, (Iowa 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 724. Kentucky. — Harkleroads u. Trosper, (Ky. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. 116. Louisiana. — Robinson v. Atkins, 105 La. 790., Massachusetts. — • Crocker v. Cotting, 166 Mass. 183. Michigan. — Peck v. Webb, 129 Mich. 342, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 975. New Hampshire. — Kendall v. Green, 67 N. H. 557; Heywood v. Wild River Lumber Co., 70 N. H. 24. New Jersey. — Naughton v. Elliott, (N. J. Eq. 1905) 59 Atl. Rep. 869. New York. — Graham v. Stern, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 406, affirmed 168 N. Y. 517; Weiant v. Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 383, affirmed 174 N. Y. 509; Smith v. Stacey, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 521. North Carolina. — Elliott v. Jefferson, 133 N. Car. 207. Pennsylvania. — Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. 697 794- SOO BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 794. See notes i, 3. 795. 2. Extrinsic Evidence. — See note 2. 796. 3. Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima, Etc. — See note 1. 797. See note 1. 4. Falsa Demonstratio Hon Nocet — a. In General. — See note 2. 798. Reasonable Construction. — See note I.' 799. Intention of Parties that All the Elements Be Necessary to Identification. — See note 2. 800. c. Particular Description Controls General. — See note 1. But if the Particular Description Is Uncertain. — See note 2. d. Most Material Element Prevails. — See note 3. e. Repugnant Clauses. — 'See note 4. Super. Ct. 434; Abrahams v. Alsberg, 173 Pa. St. 383; Fuller v. Weaver, 175 Pa. St. 182. Tennessee. — Morris v. Milner, 104 Tenn. 485- Texas. — Huff v. Crawford, 89 Tex. 214; Holland v. Thompson, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 471 ; Sellman v. Sellman, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 48. Vermont. — -Graves v. Mattison, 67 Vt. 630. A mistake in course and distance will not be permitted to defeat the intent of the parties, if such intent otherwise appears from the deed. Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N. Car. 511. Where the lines and corners were not estab- lished on the ground as in the case of an office survey, the . ambiguity or uncertainty from in- consistent calls must be removed by ascertain- ing and giving effect to the intention of the parties. Coleman County v. Stewart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 383, affirmed 95 Tex. 445- Federal Grants. — The question as to bound- aries is one of local laws, and unrestricted grants of the government ought to be construed according to the law of the state in which the land lies. Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 510, following Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371. 794. 1. Id Certum Est Quod Certum Beddi Potest. — Knowlton v. Dolan, 151 Ind. 79, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 794- 3. Substitution and Supplying of Words. — Bryant v. Kendall, 79 S. W. Rep. 186, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1859. 795. 2. Extrinsic Evidence.— Sloan v. King, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 599. Parol Evidence to Vary Description. — Fuller v. Weaver, 175 Pa. St. 182. And see generally the title Parol Evidence. 796. 1 . Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima et Fortissima in Lege. — Beach v. Whittlesey, 73 Conn. 530 ; Post Hill Imp. Co. v. Brandegee, 74 Conn. 338 ; Bartlett v. La Rochelle, 68 N. H. 211; Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N. Car. 5"- 797. 1. Whan v. Steingotter, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 83, 8 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 162 ; Deaver v. Jones, 119 N. Car. 598 ; Hale v. Morgan, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 63 S. W. Rep. 506; Donaldson v. Rail, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 336 ; Busk v. Manghum, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 621. - One buying land described as bounded by a private way between the land conveyed and that retained by the grantor is bound by the loca- tion fixed by fences previously erected by the gTantor, and cannot claim to the way as sur- veyed before the fences were erected. Stock- well v. Fitzgerald, 70 Vt. 468. 2. Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet — General Bule. — In the application of the doctrine falsa demonstratio non nocet, it is immaterial in what part of the description the falsa demon- stratio appears ; it is not necessary that it should follow a true part and qualify what has gone before. Co wen v. Truefitt, (1899) 2 Ch. 309. 798. 1. Kentucky. — West v. Chamberlain, 109 Ky. 194; Finley v. Curd, 62 S. W. Rep. 501, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1912; Uhl v. Reynolds, 64 S. W. Rep. 498, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 759 ; Johnson v. Harris, 68 S. W. Rep. 844, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 449 (closing call supplied) ; Bryant v. Kendall, 79 S. W. Rep. 186, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1859. Louisiana. — Robinson v. Atkins, 105 La. 790. Nebraska. — Egan v. Light, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 859. North Carolina. — Clark v. Moore, 126- N. Car. 1 . Tennessee Phillips v. Crabtree, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 787; State v. Cooper, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 391 ; Tellico Mfg. Co. v. Williams, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 1075. 799. 2. Repugnant Elements of the Descrip- tion Eejected.— People v. Hall, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 117. 800. 1. Particular Description Controls Gen- eral Description — General Bule. — ■ Rosenberger v. Wabash R. Co., 96 Mo. App. 504, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 799 [800] ; Heman v. Gilliam, 171 Mo. 263, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 799 [800] ; Stanwood v. Beck, (N. J. 1902) 52 Atl. Rep. 353; People v. Saxton, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 263, affirmed 154 N. Y. 748; Mitchell v. Einstein, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 358; Hitchcock v. Southern Iron, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 588; Boggess v. Allen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 195, affirmed 94 Tex. 83. 2. Where Particular Description Uncertain or Obscure. — Currier v. Jones, 121 Iowa 160, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 800. 3. The Host Material and Certain Calls Control, — Stanwood v. Beck, (N. J. 1902) 52 Atl. Rep. 353; Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 133 N. Car. 433. 4. When There Are Two Repugnant Clauses. — Johnson v. Bowlware, 149 Mo. 451; Murphy v. Murphy, 132 N. Car. 360, citing 4 Am. and Ejj& Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 800. 698 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 801 808 Description Uncertain — Construed Host Favora- 801. 5. Conflicting Descriptions My to Grantee. — See note 3. Bule Otherwise in Public Grants. — See note 4. SOS. 6. Description Hopelessly Uncertain. — See note 3. 803. 7. When Deed Refers to Another Deed or to Map. — See note 1. 804. Where a Deed Refers to Lines as Laid Down in a Map or Plat. — See note I . 805. 8. " Between," " from," " to," or " by " Objects. — See note 1. 9. Straight Line. — See note 2. 806. See note 2. 807. 10. Line Deflected. — See notes 1, 2. 11. House as Boundary. — See note 3. 808. 13. Overlapping Surveys. — See notes 1, 2. 801. 3. Description Uncertain — Construed Against Grantor. — Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 49 Am. St. Rep. 76; Knowlton v. Dolan, 151 Ind. 79, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 801-802; Creech v. Johnson, 116 Ky. 1, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 801 ; Cole v. Mueller, 187 Mo. 638 ; Clark v. Durland, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 312; Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 593. 4. In Case of Public Grants — Bule Otherwise. — Whitney v. U. S., 167 U. S. 529 ; Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 160; Creech v. Johnson, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 185,' cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 801. §02. 3. Where Description Hopelessly Uncer- tain — Instrument Void. — Alleman v. Hammond, 209 111. 70, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 802. 803. 1. Where Deed Befers to Another Deed or to Map — General Bule. — Post Hill Imp. Co. v. Brandegee, 74 Conn. 338 ; Allmendinger v. McHie, 189 111. 308, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 803. 804. 1. Deed Bef erring to Lines as Laid Down in Map or Plat — United States. — Paine v. Consumers' Forwarding, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 626; De Lancey v. Wellbrock, 113 Fed. Rep. 103. California. — Taylor v. McConigle, 120 Cal. 123; Olsen v. Rogers, 120 Cal. 225; Buckley v. Mohr, 125 Cal. xix, 58 Pac. Rep. 261. Indiana. — Tolleston Club v. Clough, 146 Ind. 93- Kentucky. — Miller v. Pryse, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep! 776. Maine. — Coleman v. Lord, 96 Me. 192. Michigan. — Guentherodt v. Ross, 121 Mich. 47- New York. — Hastings v. McDonough, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 625 (map should be considered with reference to actual survey on the ground as shown by monuments). Pennsylvania. — Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434 ; Nissley v. Moeslein, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 119. Washington. — Schwede v. Hemrich, 29 Wash. 124. Wisconsin. — Neumeister v. Goddard, (Wis. 1905) i°3 N. W. Rep. 241. A reference to a % map is of itself a reference to the survey upon which the map was based, and in case of a conflict between the map and the survey, it seems that the latter will con- trol. Burke v. McCowen, 115 Cal. 481. See, however, Haley v. Martin, (Miss. 190s) 38 So. Rep. 99. If the description in a grant does not refer to the field notes of the survey, the description in the grant will control, though the descrip- tion in the grant, as a general rule, conforms to the field notes. Taylor v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 312. 805. 1. Construction of Terms " Between " — "From"— "To" — "By." — Dunton v. Parker, 97 Me. 461. See also Between ; By; From ; To. "Near." — Creech v. Johnson, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 185. And see Near. 2. Boundary Described as Bunning from One Point to Another — Straight Line Intended. — Belding v. Hebard, 103 Fed. Rep. 532, 43 C. C. A. 296 ; Hostetter v. Los Angeles Terminal R. Co., 108 Cal. 38; Abbey v. McPherson, 1 Kan. App. 177; Willoughby v. Willoughby, (Ky. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 427 (call for straight line between monuments will be controlled by actual marked diverging line) ; Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 133 N. Car. 433; Cannon v. Hed- rick, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 37 S. W. Rep. 205; Sloan v. King, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 599 ; Fullam v. Foster, 68 Vt. 590 (where straight line was drawn between two monuments as against courses and distances). 806. 2. Where Course and Distance Not Speci- fied. — Christian v. Cope, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 56 S. W. Rep. 1030 (from monument to nearest point on line of adjoining survey). 807. 1. Deflection of Line — Intention. — Leonard v. Smith, in La. 1008; Dillingham v. Smith, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 525 ; Jackson v. Welsh Land Assoc, 51 W. Va. 482, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 807. 2. Continuous Line. — • Seitz v. People's Sav. Bank, (Mich. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 54s, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 807; Jackson v. Welsh Land Assoc, 51 W. Va. 482, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 807. 3. House as Boundary. — In New Hampshire it is held that where a description calls for a certain number of feet from a house, the dis- tance is to be measured from the base of the house and not from the eaves. Kendall v. Green, 67 N. H. 557. See also Carney v. Hen- nessey, 77 Conn. 577. 808. 1. Bule in Case of Overlapping Surveys, — Ulman v. Clark, too Fed. Rep. 180; Adams v. Wilson, 137 Ala. 632; Vincent v. Blanton, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 703 ; Hogg v. Lusk, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1128; Albert v. Salem, 39 Oregon 466, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. ob 6q 9 §08 810 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 808. 14. Calls Must Close. — See note 3. 809. 15. Block Surveys. — See notes 1, 2. 16. Functions of Court and Jury. — See note 3. 8 10. IV. Highways, Pbivate Ways, and Pabks — 1. Highways — b. GENERAL RULE — Presumption as to Extent of Ownership. — See note I . Law (2d ed.) 808; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Beaver Lumber Co., 203 Pa. St. 544; Bennett v. Latham, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 403; Allen v. Worsham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 525; Hornberger v. Giddings, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 283. The older plat of an addition to a city will control a younger plat of a subdivision of such addition. Busse v. Central Covington, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 865. 808. 2. Where Two Seeds from Same Grantor Conflict. — Quillen v. Betts, 1 Penn. (Del.) 53; Sandy River Cannel Coal Co. v. White House Cannel Coal Co., 72 S. W. Rep. 298, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1653. Where Two Tracts of Land Are Simultaneously Conveyed by the grantor to different persons, if there is an overlapping in the descriptions the grant of the grantee whose survey was prior controls. Adams v. Wilson, 137 Ala. 632. 3. Calls Must Be Made to Close. — Johnson v. Harris, 68 S. W. Rep. 844, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 449; Johnson v. Bowlware, 149 Mo. 451 (call for west read east to close) ; Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 434 (extension of call for dis- tance to close) ; Hitchcock v. Southern Iron, etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 588 (insertion of a call in order to close calls) j Warden v. Harris, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 834 (call for north read south in order to reach place of beginning) ; Park v. Wilkinson, 21 Utah 279. 809. 1. Block Surveys. — Morrison v. Sea- man, 183 Pa. St. 74; Humphrey v. Cooper, 183 Pa. St. 432, 41 W. N. C. (Pa.) 304; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Beaver Lumber Co., 203 Pa. St. 544 ; Knupp v. Barnard, 206 Pa. St. 280. 2. Knupp -o. Barnard, 206 Pa. St. 280. 3. Questions of Law and Fact — United States. — Watkins v. King, 118 Fed. Rep. 524, 55 C. C. A- 290. Alabama. — Taylor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 67 Am. St. Rep. 149. California. — Ponet u. Wills, (Cal. 1897) 48 Pac. Rep. 483; Reynier v. Elton, 133 Cal. 304. Connecticut. — Merwin v. Morris, 71 Conn. 555- Georgia. — Boardman v. Scott, 102 Ga. 404; Hammond v. George, 116 Ga. 792. Illinois. — Decatur v. Niedermeyer, 168 111. 68. Indiana. — Ayers v. Huddleston, 30 Ind. App. 243. Iowa. — Hyatt v. Clever, 104 Iowa 338. Kentucky. — Ashcraft v. Cox, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 986; Barker Cedar Co. v. Roberts, 65 S. W. Rep. 123, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1345; John- son n. Harris, 68 S. W. Rep. 844, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 449; Patterson v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 71 S. W. Rep. 930, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1571 ; Garred v. Blackburn, 82 S. W. Rep. 234, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 486. Louisiana. — State v. Burton, 106 La. 732. Massachusetts. — Graves v. Broughton, 185 Mass. 174. Michigan, — ■ Woodbury v. Venia, 1 14 Mich. 251 ; Pugh v. Schindler, 133 Mich. 314J 10 De- troit Leg. N. 169. Minnesota. — Stadin v. Helin, 76 Minn. 496 ; Ferch v, Konne, 78 Minn. 515 ; Winger v. Vaae, 82 Minn. 145. Missouri. — McKinney v. Doane, 155 Mo. 287. Nebraska. — Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735. New Jersey. — Allen v. Ponitz, (N. J. 1899) 43 Atl. Rep. 981. New York. — Egerer v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 652 ; Weiant v. Rock- land Lake Trap Rock Co., 174 N. Y. 509, affirm- ing 61 N. Y. App. Div. 383. North Carolina. — ■ Davidson v. Shuler, 1 19 N. Car. 582; Deaver v. Jones, 119 N. Car. 598; Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N. Car. 311 ; Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 128 N. Car. 301, 133 N. Car. 433; Echerd v. Johnson, 126 N. Car. 409; Williams v. Shoemaker, 127 N. Car. 182; Harp,er v. Anderson, 130 N. Car. 538. North Dakota. — Radford v. Johnson, 8 N. Dak. 182. Oregon. — Albert v . Salem, 39 Oregon 466. Pennsylvania. — Deppen v. Bogar, 7 Pa, Super. Ct. 434 ; Kron v. Daugherty, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 163 ; Lehigh Valley Coal C<3. v. Beaver Lum- ber Co., 203 Pa. St. 544 ; Miller v. Cure, 205 Pa. St. 168 ; Marcy v. Brock, 207 Pa. St. 95. South Carolina. — -Connor v. Johnson, 53 S. Car. 90. South Dakota. — Dowdle v. Cornue, 9 S. Dak. 514; White v. Amrhien, 14 S. Dak. 270. Tennessee. — Kittrell v. Biles, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. 783; Christian v. Cope, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 56 S. W. Rep. J030. Texas. — -Taylor v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 312; Petrucio v. Gross, (Tex. Civ. App. 18,98) 47 S. W. Rep. 43 ; Bell v. Preston. 19 Tex. Civ. App. 375 ; Vogt v. Geyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1100; Wiley v. Lindley, (Tex. Civ. App. tgoo) 56 S. W. Rep. 1001 ; Stacy *. Greenwade, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 277 ; White v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 67 S. W_. Rep. 1028; Broil v. Wish- ert, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. io8g. Vermont. — Turner Falls Lumber Co. v . Burns, 71 Vt. 354; Baker v. Sherman, 71 Vt. 439- Virginia. — Greif v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., (Va. 1898) 30 S. E. Rep. 438 ; Reusens v. Law- son, 96 Va. 285. The correctness of rival surveys made to es- tablish disputed boundary lines is a question for the determination of the jury. Reilly v. Howe, 101 Wis. 108. "Thence to Mountain — Thence Along Moun- tain," does not require that the line go to the top of the mountain. Duffield v. Spence, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 51 S. W. Rep. 492. Conveyance of " Bed " of Stream — What Con- stitutes the Bed.— Dayton v. Cooper Hydraulic Co., 10 Ohio Dee. 192, 7 Ohio N. P. 493. See also Bed of a River. 810. 1. Presumption as to Extent of Owner* 700 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. §11-§13 811. Presumption Rebuttable. — See note 2. 8 IS. Decisions Conflicting. — See note I. The More Seasonable Rule. — See note 813. c. Highway Vested in Public. d. Bounded "by," "on," or ' — See note I. Along" a note 3. ship. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kelley, 105 Iowa 106. 811. 2. Presumption Rebuttable. — Graham v. Stern, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 406, affirmed 168 V. Y. 517. 819. 1. Boundary at Centre of Highway. — Huff v. Hastings Express Co., 195 111. 237 (intention controls). 2. The More Reasonable Rule. -=■ Carpenter v. Buckman, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 579; Mc- Kenzie v. Gleason, 184 Mass. 452, 100 Am. St. Rep. 566; Pell v. Pell, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 472, affirmed 65 N. Y. App. Div. 388, 169 N. Y. 607; Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) S93, and citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 809 [812]. Conveyance of Lot by Number. — Where a re- corded plat of the city shows the lots abutting on a street, a conveyance of a lot by number, with reference to the plat, conveys to the cen- tre of the street. Thompson v. Maloney, 199 111. 276, 93 Am. St. Rep. 133. 813. 1. When Fee Vested in Public. — Cal- houn v. Faraldo, (La. 1905) 38 So. Rep. 551. S. When Land Described as " Bounded by," or " Bounded on," or " Sunning Along " Highway ~ * England. — Chamber Colliery Co. v. Roch- dale Canal Co., (1895) A. C. 564, 11 Reports 264; In re White, (1898) 1 Ch. 659, 67 L. J. Ch. 430, 78 L. T. N. S. 550, 46 W. R. 479 (the rule applies to streets as boundaries as well as to rural highways). United States. — Paine v. Consumers' For- warding, etc., Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 626, 37 U. S. App. 539- Illinois. — Thompson v. Maloney, 199 111. 276, 93 Am. St. Rep. 133; Corning v. Woolner, 206 111. 190 ; Owen v. Brookport, 208 111. 35. Indiana. — » Western Union Tel. Co. v. Krue- ger, (Ind. App. i9°5) 74 N. E. Rep. 25. Maine. — Winslow v. Reed, 89 Me. 67. Massachu sett s. — Lemay v. Furtado, 182 Mass. 280; McKenzie v. Gleason, 184 Mass. 452, 100 Am. St. Rep. 566. Michigan. — » Goff v. Cougle, 118 Mich. 307. Minnesota. — Hall v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 76 Minn. 401. New York. — Mattlage v. New York El. R. Co.; 157 N. Y. 708, affirming (C. PI. Gen. T.) 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 291 ; Cheney v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 158 N. Y. 739, affirming 8 N. Y. App. Div. 620; Mangam v. Sing Sing, 164 N. Y. 560, affirming 26 N. Y. App. Div. 464; Matter of Opening Cathedral Parkway, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 404, affirmed 15S N. Y. 638; Pell v. Pell, (Supm. Ct, Spec. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 472, affirmed 65 N. Y. App. Div. 388, 169 N. Y. 607 (the fact that the beginning point is stated as being on the side of the road does not change the rule when the subsequent call is for bound- ary " by " the road) ; Van Winkle v. Van Win- kle, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 593 ; Mitchell v. Einstein, (Supm. Ct, Spec. T.) HIGHWAY. — See 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 35 g . See, however, Watson v. New York, 175 N. Y. 475, affirming 67 N. Y. App. Div. 576, affirming (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 701 (intention controls) ; Mitchell v. Einstein, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 413. Rhode Island. — Healey v. Kelly, 24 R. J. 581. South Dakota. — Sweatman v. Bathrick, (S. Dak. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 422. Tennessee. — Hamilton County v. Rape, 10 1 Tenn. 222; Reeves v. Allen, 101 Tenn. 412, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 813, 814. Wisconsin. ~- Brown v. Baraboo, 98 Wis. 273 ; Smith u. Beloit, (Wis. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 877. See also Along; By; Upon. Where, by a speeial description, a strip exists between the land conveyed and a street, the grantee, of course, cannot claim to the centre of the street. Huff v. Hastings Express Co., 195 111. 257. Contract to Sell. — The rule applies to a con- tract to sell. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Fischer Foundry, etc., Co., 208 Pa. St. 73. Northerly " to " a highway carries to the cen- tre of the highway. Baker v. Barry, 22 R. I. 471- State Grant. — The rule that title to land de- scribed in a deed as bounded by a highway ex- tends to the middle of the highway applies to grants by the state as well as to grants by pri- vate individuals, Hines v. Kingston Coal Co., 186 Pa. St. 43 ; Cheney v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 158 N. Y. 739, affirming 8 N. Y. App. Div. 620. But if the dedication of the highway has been vacated before the conveyance it is otherwise. Paine v. Consumers' Forwarding, etc., .Co., (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 626. Includes Colonial Grant. — Paige v. Schenec- tady R. Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 571, reversing (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 384, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 91 (colonial English grant in confirmation of Dutch grant). Grant by Municipality carries to centre of street in the absence of circumstances showing a contrary intention. Paige v. Schenectady R. Co., 178 N. Y. 102, modifying 84 N. Y. App. Div. 91. See also In re White, (1898) 1 Ch. 659 (grant by municipality held to carry to centre of street). In Graham v. Stern, 168 N. Y. 517, affirming j j N. Y. App. Div. 406, it was held that a con- veyance by a municipality of land bordering on a street, the fee of which was in the municipal- ity, does not convey to the centre of the street, but merely to the margin. Compare Mappin v. Liberty, (1903) 1 Ch. 118, 72 L. J. Ch. 63, 87 L. T. N. S. 523 (grant by municipality whose duties with regard to the street are inconsistent with a disposal of the fee). Unopened Street. — And in New York it has been held that a conveyance by a municipality 701 814 819 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 814. e. " By the Side," " By the Margin," or " By the Line " of a Highway. — See note 2. 816. /. Highway as Opened, Not as Platted. — See note 1. 2. Private Ways — a. In General. — See note 3; 817. c. Mesne Conveyances. — See note 3. 818. VI. Party Walls. — See note 3. 819. VII. Waters as Boundaries — 1. Seashore, Estuaries, Tidal Rivers — a. In General — High-water Mark. — See note 1. Low-water Mark — The Shore. — See notes 3, 4. of land bounding on an unopened street would not carry to the centre of the proposed street. Graham v. Stern, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 406, affirmed 168 N. Y. 517. 814. 2. Land Described as "By the Side," or " By the Margin," or " By the Line " of Highway — Iowa. — Dows Real Estate, etc., Co. v. Emer- son, (Iowa 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 724. Massachusetts. — ■ McKenzie v. Gleason, 184 Mass. 452, 100 Am. St. Rep. 566. New York. — ■ Deering v. Riley, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 164, affirmed 167 N. Y. 184 (by the " side " of) ; Kennedy v. Mineola, etc., Traction Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 484, affirmed 178 N. Y. 508, (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 12 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 1! Jacquemin v. Finnegan, (County Ct.) 39 Misc, (N. Y.) 628; Mitchell' v. Einstein, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 42 Misc. (N. Y.) 358 ; Mott v. Eno 97 N. Y. App. Div. 580; Mitchell v. Einstein 105 N. Y. App. Div. 413. Rhode Island. — Healey v. Kelly, 24 R. I. 581. See, however, Hamilton County v. Rape, 101 Tenn. 222, where a deed of a lot described as situated on the " west side " of a street was held simply to mean that the lot lay on the west- ern side of or in that direction from the street, and did not stop the grantee's boundary line at the margin of the street. A Deed Describing a Lot as Beginning at a " Post Planted " on a street line, thence to another " post planted " on a street line, conveys no part of the street beyond where such other post was planted. Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19. §16. 1. Highway as Actually Opened, Intended. — Southern Iron Works v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 131 Ala. 649, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 815; Singer v. New York, 47 N. Y. App. Div. 42, affirming 165 N. Y. 658 ; Burke v. Henderson, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 157, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 803-5 [816] ; Smith v. Stacey, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 521, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 8r6; Donahue v. Keys'one Gas Co., 90 N. Y. App. Div. 386 ; Norris v. Dalrym- ple, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 287; Stockwell v. Fitz- gerald, 70 Vt. 468. See also Quebec v. North Shore R. Co., 27 Can. Sup. Ct. 102. 3. Private Ways — General Rule. — Lemay v. Furtado, 182 Mass. 280; McKenzie v. Gleason, 184 Mass. 452, 100 Am. St. Rep. 566; Pitney v. Huested, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 105 ; Baker v. Barry, 22 R. 1. 471 ; Stockwell v. Fitzgerald, 70 Vt. 468. The fact that the way has not been fenced off is immaterial. Paine v. Consumers' For- warding, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. Rep. 626. The rule does not apply when the contrary intention of the parties is shown. Crocker v. Cotting, 166 Mass. 183. In Maine it is held that though land bounded on a highway extends to the centre of the way, still when land is bounded on a private way it extends only to the side line of the way. Winslow v. Reed, 89 Me. 67, affirming Bangor House v. Brown, 33 Me. 309 ; Ames v. Hilton, 70 Me. 36. Right of Way of Railway Company as Boundary — Deed Held to Carry to Centre of Right of Way. — ■ Rice v. Clear Spring Coal Co., 186 Pa. St. 49. 817. 3. Rule as to Mesne Conveyances. — Overland Machinery Co. v. Alpenfels, 30 Colo. 175, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 817. 818. 3. Party Walls. — Ehrenreich v. Fro- ment, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 213 ; Medara v. Du Bois, 187 Pa. St. 431. See also Fleming v. Cohen, 186 Mass. 323 ; Dunlap v. Reardon, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 35. 819. 1. High-water Mark — Civil Law — Change in High-water Mark, from Natural Causes — Boundary also Changes. — De Lancey v. Wellbrock, 113 Fed. Rep. 103. Method of Determining Boundary Line De- scribed as the Junction of One Body of Water with Another. — Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 160. Head of Stream. — The head of a stream is the highest point on that stream which fur- nishes a continuous stream of water, and not necessarily its longest prong. In determining the head of a stream which has several branches, courts ha,ve uniformly held that branch to be the main fork which furnishes the main volume of water. Uhl v. Reynolds, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 498. See also Head. The Thread of a Stream is the line midway be- tween the banks at the ordinary stage of water, without regard to the channel or the lowest and deepest part of the stream. State v. Bur- ton, 106 La. 732. See also Filum Aqu^e; Thread. High-water Mark on Nontidal River.— Welch v. Browning, 115 Iowa 690. See also High- water Mark. High-water mark as applied to nontidal streams, though inaccurate, means the ordinary high-water mark. Morrison v. Skowhegan First Nat. Bank, 88 Me. 155. 3. Low-water Mark. — Low-water mark as applied to inland navigable lakes means the ordinary low-water mark. McBurney v. Young, 67 Vt. S74- Low-water mark upon an inland lake is a point at which the water stands when free from disturbing causes. Slauson v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 94 Wis. 642. See also Low-water Mark. 4. The Shore. — Dunton v. Parker, 97 Me. 461 ; Maynard v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 24 Wash. 455. 702 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 819-82!} 819. Eight of the Crown. — See note 6. Grant — Prescription. — See note 8. 830. See note i. b. Leading Rule. — See notes 2, 3. 831. See note 1. c "By," "Upon," "To," or "Along" the Shore. note 2. 833. d. Side Lines of Flats on Tide Waters. —See note 1. 2. Navigable Rivers — a. Defined. — See note 4. 833. b. General Rule — presumption. — See note 1. Conflict of Authorities. — See note 2. 835. See note 1. 836. See note 1. 838. d. Side Lines of Foreshore Owners. — See note i. — See The Term " Shore," though inapplicable, is sometimes used with regard to nontidal streams. Morrison v. Skowhegan First Nat. Bank, 88 Me^ '55- See also Shore. "Strand." — -The term "strand" is synony- mous with " shore," and is that portion of the land lying between ordinary high and low water marks. Stillman v. Burfeind, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 13. See also Strand. §1 ft. 6. When Granted to the Subject. — John- son v. State, 114 Ga. 790, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 819. 8. Grant — Prescription. — Coburn v. San Mateo County, 75 Fed. Rep. 520 ; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143. §20. 1. Uplands or Flats May Be Conveyed Separately. — Dunton v. Parker, 97 Me. /161. 2. Boundary of Lands Abutting on the Sea — Leading Rule. — Coburn v. San Mateo County, 75 Fed. Rep. 520 (Mexican grant bordering " to the, west on the sea " carries only to high-water mark) ; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 33S, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; Johnson v. State, 114 Ga. 790, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 820 ; Jarvis v. Lynch, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 349, affirmed 157 N. Y. 445; Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61 ; Stillman v. Burfeind, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 13 ; Pacific Sheet Metal Works v. Roeder, 26 Wash. 183, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 820. 8. Statutes. — Waverly Water Front, etc., Co. v. White, 97 Va. 176 (statutory provision ex- tending boundary to low-water mark). Colonial Ordinance, 1641-47. — Dunton v. Par- ker, 97 Me. 461. §21. 1. Centre Thread of Small Tidal Creeks. — Where the grantor owns to the centre of a tidal stream, a description " to mouth of creek " and " thence ascending " the stream, will carry to centre of stream. Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 49 Am. St. Rep. 76. 2. "By," "Upon," " To," or "Alone" the Shore — Decisions Conflicting. — Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 49 Am. St. Rep. 76; Freeman v. Leighton, 90 Me. S4 1 (" t0 the shore " excludes flats) ; Dunton v. Parker, 97 Me. 461. See also Along ; By ; To ; Upon. To Low-water Mark on Sea Shore. — A de- scription of land as running to a certain bay, "thence northerly following the meandering from said bay," carries to low-water mark. Maynard v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 24 Wash. 455- To High-water Mark on Shore. — Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; Stillman v. Burfeind, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 13. To High-water Mark on Tidal Rivers. — Dis- trict of Columbia v. Cropley, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 232 (legislative grant held to carry only to high-water mark). §22. 1. Side Lines of Flats on Tide Waters — General Rule. — Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. 15. 4. What Is Meant by a Navigable River as a Boundary. — Webster v. Harris, m Tenn. 668. §23. 1, Presumption — Seed Conveys as Far as Grantor Owns. — Smith v. Bartlett, 180 N. Y. 366, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 823. Non-ownership of Bed of River. — The rule that the conveyance of land adjoining a river passes ad medium Alum without special mention does not apply where the bed is not owned by the grantor so that it would pass if expressly men- tioned. Ecroyd v. Coulthard, (1897) 2 Ch. 554. (1898) 2 Ch. 358. 2. To Middle Thread of River. — Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380 ; Belle- fontaine Imp. Co. v. Niedringhaus, 181 111. 426. 72 Am. St. Rep. 269 ; Smith v. Bartlett, 180 N. Y. 360, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 823 ; Chesbrough v. Head, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 427. In Wisconsin it is held that where a river separates Wisconsin from another state, the title of a riparian owner in Wisconsin goes to the state boundary line in the river, regardless of whether that is nearer to or farther from the shore than the filum aqua of the stream. Franzini v. Layland, 120 Wis. 72. Leases. — The rule applies to leases. Bal- lance v. Peoria, 180 111. 29, reversing 70 111. App. 546 (Illinois river). §25. 1. To High-water Mark. — Black v. Diver, 68 Kan. 204; Dashiel v. Harshman, 113 Iowa 283 ; Smucker v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 521, reversing 188 Pa. St. 40; Washougal, etc., Transp. Co. v. Dalles, etc., Nav. Co., 27 Wash. 490. §26. 1. To Low- water Mark. — Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812 (announc- ing law in Tennessee) ; Edwards v. Woodruff, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 575. §28. 1. Side Lines of Foreshore Owners,— 703 838-834 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV 828. 3. Nonnavigable Streams — a. General Rule. — See notes 3, 4. 830. b. By " Bank " or " Shore " of Stream. — See notes 2, 3. 831. c. "Bounding On," "Running Along" a Stream, and the LIKE. — See note 1. 83». /. Side Lines to Filum Aqu^e Determined. —See note 3. g. Artificial Watercourses. — See note 4. 833. 4. Lakes and Ponds — a. General Rule. — See note 1. 834. b. Boundary Lines on Nonnavigable Lakes. — See note 1. Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Oregon 244. citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. .of Law (2d ed.) 828. 828. 3. Nonnavigable Streams — Common-law Bole. — Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rochdale Canal Co., (1895) A. C. 564. 4. Nonnavigable Streams — United States Rule. — Matter of Wilder, 90 N. Y. App. Div. 262, citing 4 Am, anp Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed,) 828 ; Ludwig v. Overly, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 690, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 709; Edwards v. Woodruff, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 575; Webster v. Harris, 11 1 Tenn- 668; Walls v. Cunningham, (Wis. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 696. A description of land extending to a stake on the bank of a stream, thence up the stream to a sycamore on the bank, has been held to carry to the thread of the stream. Reunion v. Alley, (Ky. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 849. Island. — The fact that there is an island in the watercourse does not change the rule that a grant of land bordering on the watercourse carries to the centre of the stream. Whitaker -0. McBride, 197 U. S- 510. Federal Grants. — Grants of the federal gov- ernment for land bounded on streams without any reservation or restriction of terms ought to be construed as to their effect according to the law of the state in which the land lies. Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 510, following Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371. 830. 2. Land Described as Bounded " on the Bank or Shore " of Stream. — ■ Morrison v. Skow- hegan First Nat. Bank, 88 Me. 155; Matter of Rochester, 8 N, Y. App. Div. 609 (a call to the top of the bank of a stream, thence along the top of the bank ; the course should follow the meanders of the bank), A description of land as lying on the south " side of " a river carries to the centre of the river. Hanlon v. Hobson, 24 Colo. 284. S. Dayton v. Cooper Hydraulic Co., 10 Ohio Dec. 192, 7 Ohio N. P. 495 (to ordinary line of water without reference to extraordinary freshets or extraordinary low water). See, however, Morrison v. Skowhegan First Nat. Bank, 88 Me. 155, where the call was to high- water mark of a river and thence by the bank or shore. of the river, and it was held to carry only to the ordinary high-water mark. Where the description expressly calls for the low-water mark of the stream, such mark will, of course, be the boundary line. Webster v. Harris, 111 Tenn. 668. 831. 1, Land Described as "Bounding on" or " Running Along " Stream — United States, — Kirwan v. Murphy, 83 Fed. Rep. 275, 49 U. S. App. 658. California. — Kirby v. Potter, 138 Cal. 686. Colorado. — Hanlon v. Hobson, 24 Colo. 284, Indiana, — Sizor v. Logansport, 151 Ind. 626. Kansas. — Stelnbuchel v. Lane, 59 Kan. 7 (held not to extend to any part of an island separated from the shore by a well-defined chan- nel). Kentucky. — Penrod v. Bruce, 61 S. W- Rep. 1, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1697 (rule does not apply where grantor has previously conveyed the bed of the stream) ; Stonestreet v. Jacobs, 82 S. W. Rep. 363, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 628. Nebraska. — McBride v. Whitaker, 65 Neb. North Carolina. — Rowe v. Cape Fear Lum- ber Co., 128 N. Car. 301. Tennessee. — ■ Webster v. Harris, 1 1 1 Tenn. 668. Wisconsin. — Lampman v. Van Alstyne, 94 Wis. 417; Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102. The Fact that a Dam Extends Across the Stream does not change the rule, but the grantee ac- quires title to the dam to the thread of the stream. Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102. Mention of a Monument on the bank of a stream does not change the rule, Stonestreet ■0. Jacobs, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 363. 832. 3. Side Lines of Lands Fronting on Non- navigable River. — South Shore Lumber Co. v. Thompson Lumber Co., (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 738. 4, Lands Bounded upon Artificial 'Watercourses. — Warren v. Gloversville, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 291, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc, of Law (2d ed.) 832. In Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rochdale Canal • Co., (1895) A. C. 564, it was held that th« pre- sumption did not apply in the case of the con- veyance of land bounded by a canal, 833. 1. Calls for Natural Lake or Pond — General Bule. — Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, affirming 177 111, 123 (on the ground that the Illinois rule controls a federal grant of land situate in Illinois) ; Boardman v. Scott, 102 Ga. 404, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 832; Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep, 380 ; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21 ; McBurney v. Young, 67 Vt. 574. A description commencing at a point " twenty feet above low-water mark, thence along the said shore about twenty feet above low-water mark," carries only to a line about twenty feet above low-water mark. Lynch v. Troxell, 207 Pa. St. 162. 834. 1. Nonnavigable Lakes and Ponds. — Kirwan v. Murphy, 83 Fed. Rep. 275, 49 U. S. App. 658 ; Wilcox v. Bread, 92 Hun (N, Y.) 9, affirmed 157 N. Y. 713. " Where a meandered lake is nonnavigable, and in cases where lakes have gradually and imperceptibly dried up, the owner of land bordering on the shore thereof takes to the centre or middle of the lake. In other words, the title of the shore owner extends to the centre of the lake, the boundary lines of his 704 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 835-840 835. c. Meander Lines on Nonnavigable Lakes. — See note i. 836. e. Boundary on Artificial Lake or Pond. — See note 2. 837. g. Side ' Lines on Foreshore of Navigable Lakes. — See note 6. 838. VIII. Jurisdiction of Questions of Boundary — 1. Interstate Boun- daries Determined. — See note 1. 2. At Law. — See note 3. 839. 3. In Equity. — See notes 2, 3. 840. Right of Discovery. — See note 1. Fraud. — See note 2. tract extending from the shore or meander line, on lines converging to a point in the centre of the lake bed ; and such lake bed is an incident and an appurtenance to the adjoining lands, and becomes the property of the individual shore owner upon acquiring title to the adjoining land." Shell u. Matteson, 81 Minn. 38, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 828 [834]. Swamp. — A description running to a swamp and thence along the swamp carries only to the banks of the swamp, and not to the centre thread of a stream running through the swamp. Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 128 N. Car. 301. Where the call is " with the run of the swamp " the line should be extended to the run and not limited to the edge of the swamp. Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 133 N. Car. 433- And it has been held that where there is a call for a swamp, it is for the jury to say whether the margin or the run is intended. Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 133 N. Car. 433, citing Brooks v. Britt, 4 Dev. L. (15 N. Car.) 481, and explaining Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 128 N. Car. 301 ; Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., (1905) 138 N. Car. 46s, following Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 133 N. Car. 433. §35. 1. Meander Lines on Nonnavigable Lakes. — Schlosser v. Cruickshank, 96 Iowa 414. See, however, Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152, 97 Am. St. Rep. 292. The fact that the meandered line does not actually follow the bank of the lake does not alter the rule. Schlosser v. Cruickshank, 96 Iowa 414. The fact that the quantity called for by the grant and the quantity within the meandered line correspond does not alter the rule. Schlos- ser v. Cruickshank, 96 Iowa 414. §36. 2. Artificial Pond. —Under a deed bounding the land therein conveyed by an arti- ficial pond, which had been in existence for more than forty years, and which had thus become a permanent body of water, and was still being kept up and maintained as such, its waters, however, ebbing and flowing from time to time, so as to leave a margin of land be- tween its high and low water marks, the line of the land so conveyed did not extend to the thread of the stream from whose waters the pond was formed, but only to the low-water mark of the pond at the date of the execution of the deed. Boardman v. Scott, 102 Ga. 404. A conveyance bounded by an artificial pond does not carry to the centre of the pond, but I Supp. E. Of L.— 45 7°5 merely to the shore ; but where the pond is merely an enlargement of a stream by the erec- tion of a dam, the grant will carry to the centre of the pond. Roberts v. Decker, 120 Wis. 102. §37. 6. Side Lines on Foreshore of Navigable Lakes. — See Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273. §3§. 1. Where the Boundary Line Between Two States is the centre thread of a river, in case of a sudden and violent change in the channel of the river the boundary between the states remains in the old channel. Stockley v. Cissna, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 812. The Middle of the Sabine River is the boundary line between the states of Louisiana and Texas. State v. Burton, 106 La. 732. The Boundary Line Between Wisconsin and Minnesota is the centre line of the main chan- nel of the Mississippi river. Franzini v. Lay- land, 120 Wis. 72. 3. Limitations of Jurisdiction at Law. — New York, etc., Land Co. v. Votaw, 91 Tex. 282. §39. 2. Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 839 ; Heideman v. Sequin, no La. 449; F. H. Wolf Brick Co. v. Lonyo, 132 Mich. 162, 102 Am. St. Rep. 412, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 566. Where Thera Are Other Grounds for equitable jurisdiction a court of equity may in the suit establish boundary lines. Le Comte v. Carson, (W. Va. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 238. Appointment of Commissioners. — Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570. 3. Necessity for Superinduced Equity. — Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 839 ; Blumenauer v. O'Connor, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 17; McCreery Land., etc., Co. v. Myers, 70 S. Car. 282 ; Collins v. Sutton, 94 Va. 127 ; Rob- inson v. Moses, (Va. 1899) 34 S. E. Rep. 48; Eakin v. Taylor, 55 W. Va. 652. §40. 1. Discovery as to Boundaries. — The mere fact that a land owner has in his posses- sion a map and deed showing the disputed boundary line does not confer jurisdiction upon a court of equity for discovery of evidence. Collins v. Sutton, 94 Va. 127. 2. Fraud. — While the jurisdiction of a court of equity to establish a disputed boundary line does not arise upon any mere dispute as to the location of the boundary between adjoining parcels of land or even upon the mere dispute as to such location because of a confusion or ob- literation of the line, it will be exercised when the obliteration or confusion has resulted from the act of the defendant in fraud of the com- plainant's rights. Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. or Law (2d. ed.) 840, 843-848 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 842. IX. Stattjtoby Pbovisions fob Detebmining Botodabies — United States. — See note 2. 846. See note 1. [Canada. — See note 2«.J 847. X. Establishment of Botjndabies by Evidence — 1. In General. — See note 3. 2. Parol Evidence — a. General Rule. — See note 4. 848. b. When Admissible — (1) To Remove Latent Ambiguities. — See note 1. 842. 2. Statutes for Determining Boundaries — Georgia. — liowen v. Jackson, 101 Ga. 817; Crawford v. Wheeler, 11 1 Ga. 870; Ballard v. Haines, 115 Ga. 847; Riddle v. Sheppard, 119 Ga. 930; Walker v. Boyer, 121 Ga. 300. Illinois. — Ely v. Brown, 183 111. 575- Indiana. — Ricketts v. Dorrell, 59-Ind. 427; Tolleston Club v. Clough, 146 Ind. 93 ; Spacy ■v. Evans, (Ind. 1897) 48 N. E. Rep. 355 (waiver of conclusiveness of official survey by agree- ment for new survey) ; Wood v. Kuper, 150 Ind. 622; Williams v. Atkinson, 152 Ind. 98; Spacy v. Evans, 152 Ind. 431 ; Bennett v. Simon, 152 Ind. 490; Miller v. White, 28 Ind. App. 371 ; Ayers v. Huddleston, 30 Ind. App. 242 ; Helton v. Fastnow, 33 Ind. App. 288. Iowa. — Maher v. Shenhall, 96 Iowa 634 ; Richards v. Schneider, (Iowa 1898) 76 N. W. Rep. 711 (appeal) ; Boyd v. Shoop, 107 Iowa 10; Dickinson County v. Fouse, 112 Iowa 21 (who may maintain proceedings) ; McAnich v. Hulse, 113 Iowa 58; Oster v. Devereaux, 115 Iowa 724; Newton v. Templeman, 115 Iowa 643 ; Brutsche v. Bowers, 122 Iowa 226. Kansas. — Estrel v. Diehl, 6 Kan. App. 245 (review of order and report of surveyor) ; Lackey v. Wilson, 63 Kan. 881; Swarz v. Ra- mala, 63 Kan. 633 ; Close v. Huntington, 66 Kan. 354; Shanline v. Wiltsie, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 436. Kentucky. — Liter v. Shirley, (Ky. 1896) 35 S. W. Rep. sso; Krauth v. Hahn, 65 S. W. Rep. 18, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1261 ; Chenault v. Spencer, 68 S. W. Rep. 128, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 141. Louisiana. — Williams v. Bernstein, 51 La. Ann. us ; Booth v. Buras, 104 La. 614. Massachusetts. — Gardner v. Essex County, 183 Mass. 189. Michigan. — Van Der Groef v. Jones, 108 Mich. 65 (provision for surveys by county sur- veyors) . Minnesota. — Stadin v. Helin, 76 Minn. 496 ; Ferch v. Konne, 78 Minn. 515 ; Rock v. Donora Min. Co., 91 Minn. 259. Missouri. — Allen v. Hickam, 156 Mo. 49 (qualification of commissioners) ; Granby Min., etc., Co. v. DaVis, 156 Mo. 422. North Carolina. — Scott v. Kellum, 117 N. Car. 664; Williams v. Hughes, 124 N. Car. 3; Midgett v. Midgett, 129 N. Car. 21 ; Parker v. Taylor, 133 N. Car. 103 ; Smith v. Johnson, (N. Car. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 62. North Dakota. — Radford v. Johnson, 8 N. Dak. 182. Oklahoma. — Watkins v. Havighorst, 13 Okla. t28. Oregon. — Sellwood v. Henneman, 36 Oregon 575 ; Egan v. Finney, 42 Oregon 599. Rhode Island. — Taber v. Hall, 23 R. I. 613, 34 R. I. 88. Tennessee. — Barnes v. Brown, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 326 (necessity for notice for processioning survey). Texas. — Wardlow v. Harmon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 828 (survey by sur- veyor appointed by court) ; Broil v. Wishert, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 N. W. Rep. 1089. Washington. — Wilkeson Coal, etc., Co. v. Driver, 13 Wash. 610. Wisconsin. — Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209. Location by county surveyor of section lines is only prima facie correct. Webster v. White, 8 S. Dak. 479. Proceedings under the Maine statute to estab- lish the boundary lines between towns does not affect the rights of individuals. Whitcomb v. Dutton, 89 Me. 212. Compensation of Surveyor. — Swoope v. Moody, 73 Miss. 82. Surveyor Appointed by Committee Must Be Dis- interested. — Carney v . Wilkinson, 67 Conn. 345- 846. 1. Muncy v. Mattfield, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 345. 2a. Canada. — Mercier v. Barrette, 25 Can. Sup. Ct. 94. 847. 3. The Best Evidence. — Cloud County v. Morgan, 7 Kan. App. 213 (with regard to highway there is no presumption that actual surveyed line was centre of highway). Evidence that a fence, the true line of which is in dispute, is in line with fences on adjoining lands, is inadmissible to show that it is on the true line. Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406. 4. General Bule as to Parol Evidence — Not Admissible to Vary Description. — United States. — • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 668. Illinois. — Ballance v. Peoria, 180 111. 29. Iowa. — Palmer v. Osborne, 115 Iowa 714 (custom with regard to platting additions to cities). Maryland. — Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19. New lersey. — Naughton v. Elliott, (N. J. Eq. 1905) 59 Atl. Rep. 869. North Carolina. — Davidson v. Shuler, 119 N. Car. 582. Texas. • — Blackwell v. Coleman County, 94 Tex. 216; Coleman County v. Stewart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 383, affirmed 95 Tex. 445 ; Sloan v. King, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 48 ; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 781. 848. 1. Parol Evidence Admissible to Remove latent Ambiguities — Connecticut. — Beach v. Whittlesey, 73 Conn. 530. District of Columbia. — Okie v- Person, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 170. 706 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 849-851 849. (2) To Prove Location on the Ground. — See note 1. 850. (3) To Establish. Lost Corners. — See notes 1, 2. 3. Hearsay Evidence — a. In General. — See notes 3, 4. Particular Facts. — See note 6. 851. In the United States. — See note I. b. DECLARATIONS AND ADMISSIONS — Declarations of Deceased Persons. — See note 3. Georgia. — Leverett v. Bullard, 121 Ga. 534. Illinois. — Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 178 111. 473. Kentucky. — Hall v. Conlee, 62 S. W. Rep. 899, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 177. Massachusetts. — Graves v. Broughton, 185 Mass. 174. New Hampshire. — Bartlett v. La Rochelle, 68 N. H. an. New York. — Watson v. New York, 175 N. Y. 47s, affirming 67 N. Y. App. Div. 573 ; Bell v . Hayes, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 382 ; Smith V . Stacey, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 521. North Carolina. — Davidson v. Shuler, 119 N. Car. 582 (to show clerical error in stating compass points) ; Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N. Car. 51 1 ; Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co., 138 N. Car. 465. Ohio. — Crane v. Buckles, 5 Ohio Dec. 539 (reference to prior deeds). Texas. — Dillingham v. Smith, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 525 ; Sloan v. King, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 48. West Virginia* — Summerfield v. White, 54 W. Va. 311. It is not competent to create an ambiguity by changing the written description by parol evi- dence, so as to render parol evidence admissi- ble to explain the ambiguity so raised. Resur- rection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., (C.-C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 668. §49. 1. Parol Evidence Admissible to Prove Location on the Ground. — Harris v. Ansonia, 73 Conn. 359 ; Diggs v. Kurtz, 132 Mo. 250 ; David- son v. Shuler, 119 N. Car. 582. Measurements by Person Not a Surveyor. — Any measurement of the ground, whether made by a surveyor or any one else, is competent, the accuracy of the measurement being a ques- tion for the jury. Gunkel v. Seiberth, (Ky. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 733. 850. 1. Parol Evidence Admissible to Estab- lish Lost Monuments. — Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 688; Vaughan v. Knowlton, 112 Cal. 151; Justen 0. Schaaf, 17s 111. 4s; Busse 0. Central Covington, (Ky. 1897) 38 S. W. Rep. 865 (testimony of surveyor) ; Woodbury 0. Venia, 114 Mich. 251 (actual survey) ; Tuxedo Park Assoc, v. Sterling Iron, etc., Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 359; Echerd 0. Johnson, 126 N. Car. 409 ; Besson 0. Richards, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 64 ; Hamilton 0. Saunders, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 1069 ; Matthews v. Thatcher, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 61 ; Chew 0. Zweib, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 925. In order to testify to marks on trees, the witness need not be an expert. Vogt 0. Geyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1100. Parol Evidence is always admissible to locate the monuments and boundaries. Carter 0. Clark, 92 Me. 225. Testimony of Chaimnan Employed in Survey is admissible. Marshall 0. Corbett, (N. Car. 1905) 50 -S. E. Rep. 210. A Map Drawn by the Surveyor may be admis- sible to corect calls in the surveyor's certificate and corresponding calls in the patent. Hogg 0. Lusk, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1128; McCoy v. Cassidy, (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 1130. 2. Marked Lines or Corners Not Called for in Grant — California. — Taylor v. McConigle, 120 Cal. 123 (actual survey) ; Olsen 0. Rogers, 120 Cal. 225 ; Harrington v. Boehmer, 134 Cal. 196; Wheeler 0. Benjamin, 136 Cal. 51. Michigan. — Olin v. Henderson, 120 Mich. 149; Anderson v. Wirth, 131 Mich. 183, 9 De- troit Leg. N. 254. Missouri. — Granby Min., etc., Co. 0. Davis, 156 Mo. 422; Johnson v. Boonville, 85 Mo. App. 199 (testimony of surveyor). New York. — Pearsall v. Westcott, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 99 (weight to be attached to survey). Pennsylvania. — Kron 0. Daugherty, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 163; Culver 0. Hazlett, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 323 (marks of old survey on the ground). South Dakota. — White 0. Amrhien, 14 S. Dak. 270. Vermont. — Clark 0. Gallagher, 74 Vt. 331 (rebutting accuracy to locate boundaries). Virginia. — Greif 0. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., (Va. 1898) 30 S. E. Rep. 438 (evidence of marks on trees claimed as monuments). On the question as to the true location of a quarter-section line, testimony as to how the line claimed by one party agrees with fences in adjoining section is immaterial. Schlei v. Struck, 109 Wis. 598. Where it is apparent that a square tract of land was divided into four equal parts, it is competent in evidence of the dividing line be- tween two of the lots to show the line between the two other lots. O'Banion 0. Goodrich, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 1015. Burden of Proof as to Shifting of Water Bound- ary. — Leonard 0. Forbing, 109 La. 220. Records of Surveys by County Surveyor. — Schlei 0. Struck, 109 Wis. 598. 3. General Rule as to Hearsay Evidence. — Wheeler 0. State, 109 Ala. 56 ; Dowdle v. Cornue, 9 S. Dak. 126. 4. Where No Better Evidence Is Procurable. — Taylor 0. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 67 Am. St. Rep. 149; Riseden v. Harrison, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 884. 6, King 0. Watkins, 98 Fed. Rep. 913; Olin v. Henderson, 120 Mich. 149 ; Guentherodt v. Ross, 121 Mich. 47; Harper 0. Anderson, 130 N. Car. 538. 851. 1. Rule in United States — Matters 0" Private Boundaries. — See Fraser . Hunter, 5 Cranch (C. C. ) 470, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,063. Declarations of Deceased Chain Bearer Partici- pating in Survey. — Koons 0. Bryson, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 297. 3, Declarations of Deceased Persons — United 7' J 7 853-856 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 853. 853. 854. 855. note 4. 856. Declarations Against Interest. — See notes I, 2. The Limitations of the Bale. — See note I . c. General Repute — in the united states. — See note 3. 4. Field Notes, Plats, and Maps — By the United states statutes. — See See note 1. Private Survey. — See note 2. The Field Note of Surrounding Surveys. — See note 3. States. — King v. Watkins, 98 Fed. Rep. 913 (report of survey by deceased surveyor held inadmissible). Compare Martin v. Hughes, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 632 (testimony of deceased surveyor given in court). Connecticut. — Hamilton o. Smith, 74 Conn. 374 (declaration of deceased made after com- mencement of action held inadmissible, though he had no knowledge of action, and though his declarations made before the action were admitted). North Carolina. — Westfelt v. Adams, 131 N. Car. 379. Tennessee. — Montgomery v. Lipscomb, 105 Tenn. 144. Texas. — Matthews v. Thatcher, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 61. Vermont. — Martyn v. Curtis, 68 Vt. 397 ; Turner Falls Lumber Co. v. Burns, 71 Vt. 354- Virginia. — Fry v. Stowers, 92 Va. 13. See also Finley v. Curd, 62 S. W. Rep. 501, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1912. Compare Southern Iron Works v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 131 Ala. 649. 852. 1. Declarations Against Interest — Ala- bama. — Wheeler v. State, 109 Ala. 56. Connecticut. — Hamilton v. Smith, 74 Conn. 374 (act of grantor locating boundaries). Iowa. — Miller v. Mills County, 1 1 1 Iowa 654 (acquiescence in line is evidence of true loca- tion). Maine. — Whitcomb v. Dutton, 89 Me. 212. Pennsylvania. — • Kron v. Daugherty, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 163. Tennessee. — Christian v. Cope, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 56 S. W. Rep. 1030. Texas. — Bell v. Preston, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 375 (admission before acquiring title held in- admissible) : Vogt v. Geyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1 898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1 1 00 (declarations of agent) . Value of Old Fence as Fixing Boundary. — Woll- man v. Ruehle, 104 Wis. 603. 2. State v. Crocker, 49 S. Car. 242 (self- serving declarations inadmissible) ; Bailey v. Baker, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 124 (not admissible against person not in privity) ; Fry v. Stowers. 92 Va. 13. 853. 1. Limitations of Rnle as to Declarations Made Ante Litem Motam. — Clark v. Gallagher, 74 Vt. 331. A Copy of an Affidavit Filed by a Surveyor in the public records is not admissible as a declaration of the surveyor who has since died. Daniels v. Fitzhugh, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 300. 854. 3. Klinkner v. Schmidt, 114 Iowa 605 ; Kentucky Land, etc., Co. v. Crabtree, 113 Ky. 922; Echerd v. Johnson. 126 N. Cnr. 409; West- felt v. Adams, 131 N. Car. 379; Montgomery v. Lipscomb, 105 Tenn. 144 ; Matthews v. Thatcher, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 61. 855. 4,. United. States Statute — United States. — Martin v . Hughes, 98 Fed. Rep. 556, 39 C. C. A. 160. Alabama. — Taylor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 67 Am. St. Rep. 149. California. — Harrington v. Boehmer, 134 Cal. 196. Kentucky. — Patrick v. Spradlin, (Ky. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 919; Bell County Land, etc., Co. v. Hendrickson, 68 S. W. Rep. 842, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 371- Maine. — Adams v. Clapp, 99 Me. 169. Michigan. — Brown v. Milliman, 119 Mich. 606; Olin v. Henderson, 120 Mich. 149. Minnesota. — Ferch v. Konne, 78 Minn. 515. Missouri. — Carter v. Hornback, 1 39 Mo. 238 ; Granby Min., etc., Co. v. Davis, 156 Mo. 422. Nebraska. — Clark v. Thornburg, 66 Neb. 717; Knoll v. Randolph, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 195 ; Baty v. Elrod, 66 Neb. 735. Pennsylvania. — Mineral R., etc., Co. v . Auten, 188 Pa. St. 568, 43 W. N. C. (Pa.) 158. South Dakota. — White v. Amrhien, 14 S. Dak. 270. Tennessee. — Montgomery v. Lipscomb, 105 Tenn. 144. Texas. — Pierce v. Schram, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 716; Stewart v. Crosby, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 433; Besson v. Richards, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 64 ; McLane v. Grice, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 66 S. W. Rep. 709 ; Hamilton v. Saunders, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 1069. Washington. — Simmons v. Jamieson, 32 Wash. 619. The Actual Survey Line of a government sur- vey must be followed though the survey was made on a wrong magnetic variation. Taylor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 67 Am. St. Rep. 149. Inconsistent Field Notes. — Where a govern- ment corner is lost or obliterated, so that re- sort must be had to the government field notes for the purpose of determining its location, but these field notes are inconsistent and cannot be reconciled, there is no universal rule that certain ones shall be preferred to the others, but, as in a case where living witnesses contradict each other, those should be accepted as correct which under all the circumstances are most en- titled to credit and most likely to be in ac- cordance with the actual facts. Standin v. Helin, 76 Minn. 496. 856. 1. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 178 111. 473; Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273. Since the plat is made from the field notes, in case of a discrepancy between the two the field notes control. Harrington v. Boehmer, 134 Cal. 196. 2. Private Survey. — Van Der Groef v. Jones, 108 Mich. 6s : Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406. 3. Field Notes of qurrqundjng Surveys — Unitti Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 856-860 856. Haps in Common TTse. — See note 4. 857. 5. Ancient Deeds, Extents, Surveys, and Patents. — See note 1. 858. 7. Possession. — See note 4. 8. Weight of Evidence. — See note 5. 859. See note 1. XI. BOUNDAHY AS AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT, ACQUIESCENCE, OB ESTOP- PEL — 1. In General. — See note 3. 860. 2. Agreement — Whore the Boundary Is in Doubt. — See note I . States. — King v. Watkins, 98 Fed. Rep. 913 (deed to adjoining land held inadmissible ; no connection of the lands appearing on face of deed). Kentucky. — O'Banion v. Goodrich, 62 S. W. Rep. 1015, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 313. Tennessee. — State v. Cooper, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 391. Texas. — Barrow v. Lyons, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 773 ; Daniels v. Fitzhugh, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 300 ; Petrucio v. Gross, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 43 ; Matthews v. Thatcher, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 61. Compare Coleman County v. Stewart, (Tex. Civ. App. 1961) 65 S. W. Rep. 383, affirmed 95 Tex. 445. Utah. — Washington Rock Co. v. Young, (Utah 1905) 80 Pac. Rep. 382. Vermont. — Martyn v. Curtis, 68 Vt. 397. West Virginia. — Kain v. Young, 41 W. Va. 618 (stream located from maps of surrounding survey) . Where a surveyor makes at the same time a survey of two adjoining tracts for the same person, the field notes' for one survey may be used in locating the boundaries of the other. Bell v. Preston, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 375. 856. 4. Haps. — Taylor v. McConigle, 120 Cal. 123; Justen v. Schaaf, 175 111. 45; Carpen- ter v. Fisher, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 622; Ostrom 1/. Layer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1095. 857. 1. Ancient Documents. — Olsen v. Rogers, 120 Cal. 225 (deed of common grantor) ; Mer- win v. Morris, 71 Conn. 555; Hamilton -v. Smith, 74 Conn. 374 (copy of ancient map which has been destroyed held inadmissible) ; Pierce v. Schram, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 716. 858. 4. Aeti of Ownership. — Whitcomb v. Dutton, 89 Me. 212; M. E. Society v. Akers, 167 Mass. 560 ; Welton v. Poynter, 96 Wis. 346. 5. United States. — Ulman v. Clark, 100 Fed. Rep. 180. Arkansas. — Sherman v. King, 71 Ark. 248. California. — Vaughan v. Kno wlton, 1 1 2 Cal. 151 ; Reynier v. Elton, 133 Cal. 304. Illinois. — Itasca v. Schroeder, 182 111. 192; LaMont v. Dickinson, 189 111. 628; Macauley v. Cunningham, 60 111. App. 28. Iowa. — Rowell v. Weinemann, 119 Iowa 256, 97 Am. St. Rep. 310; Rowell v. Clark, 119 Iowa 299. Kentucky. — Handshoe v. Conley, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1 1 40. Michigan. — Anderson v. Wirth, 134 Mich. 612, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 589. Nebraska. — Shrake v. Laflin, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 184; Williams v. Shepherdson, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 827. New Jersey. — Saunders v. Sutton, (N. J. •903) 55 Atl. Rep. 652 ; Dowling v. Linburg, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 1035. New York. — Roth v. Rochester, 90 Hun (N. Y.) 606. Oregon. — Shaver v. Adams, 37 Oregon 282; Albert v. Salem, 39 Oregon 466 ; Killgore v. Carmichael, 42 Oregon 618. Pennsylvania. — Richardson v. Morris, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 192; Wilson v. Marvin, 172 Pa. St. 30. South Dakota. — Cope v. Eckert, 15 S. Dak. 177; Unzelmann v. Shelton, (S. Dak. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 646. Tennessee. — Spears v. Hall, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 248; Cannon- v. Hedrick, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 205 ; Smith v. Hutchi- son, 104 Tenn. 394 ; Mason v. Williams, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 58 S. W. Rep. 755; Ballinger o. Stinnett, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 1044; Clay -v. Sloan, 104 Tenn. 401. Texas. — Taylor v. Brown, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 312; Ostrom v. Layer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1095; Childress County Land, etc., Co. v. Baker, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 451 ; Bullard v. Watkins, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 205; Richardson v. McCullough, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 974 ; Morgan v. Mowles, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 61 S. W. Rep. 155; McCulloch v. Pat- man, (Tex. Civ. App. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 1012; Barrow v. Lyons, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 773- Vermont. — Baker v. Sherman, 71 Vt. 439. Washington. — -Thayer v. Spokane County, 36 Wash. 63. Wisconsin. — ■ Gilman v. Brown, 115 Wis. 1; McGarry v. Runkel, 118 Wis. 1 ; Neumeister v. Goddard, (Wis. 1905) 103 N. W. Rep. 241. With regard to the location of a highway, the testimony of the viewers by whom the road was laid out is not, as a matter of law, entitled to greater weight than the testimony of other people having actual knowledge of the location of the highway. Cloud County v. Morgan, 7 Kan. App. 213. Value of Fence as Evidence. — Kennedy v. Niles, (Iowa 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 772. 859. 1. Preponderance of Evidence. — Pugh v. Schindler, 133 Mich. 314, 10 Detroit Leg. N- 169; Rook v. Greenewald, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 641 ; Masterson v. Ribble, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 358; Greif v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., (Va. 1898) 30 S. E. Rep. 438. 3. Practical Location. — People v. Hall, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 117; Parrish v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1097. S60. 1. Asreement — United States. — Glen Mfg. Co. v. Weston Lumber Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 242 ; South Shore Lumber Co. v. Thompson Lumber Co., (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 738. 709 86© BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. Alabama. — Wheeler v. State, 109 Ala. 56, Arkansas. — McCombs v. Wall, 66 Ark. 336 (husband has no implied power to bind wife by agreement as to boundary line) ; Sherman v. King, 71 Ark. 248, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860. California. — Dierssen v. Nelson, 138 Cal. 394- Georgia. — Chewning v. Bryson, 108 Ga. 750; Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 86o„ Illinois. — St. Bede College v. Weber, 168 111. 324; Clayton v. Feig, 179 111. 534; LaMont v. Dickinson, 189 111. 628, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860 ; Henderson v. Dennis, 177 111. 550, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860. Indiana. — Burr v. Smith, 152 Ind. 469. Iowa. — Dashiel v. Harshman, 113 Iowa 283; Kulas v. McHugh, 114 Iowa 188. Kansas. — Steinhilber v. Holmes, 68 Kan. 607. Kentucky. — Gayheart v. Cornett, (Ky. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 730 (interference of bdundary line as shown by title papers unnecessary to validity of agreement) ; Duff -u. Cornett, 62 S. W. Rep. 89s, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 297 ; Campbell v. Campbell, 64 S. W. Rep. 458, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 869 ; Higginson v. Schaneback, 66 S. W. Rep. 1040, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2230; Alexander v. Parks, 72 S. W. Rep. 1105, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2113 ; Camp- bell v. Combs, 77 S. W. Rep. 923, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1643. Louisiana. — Fortier v. Roane, 104 La. 90 (husband has no implied power to bind wife by agreement as to disputed boundary line). Michigan. — Dauer v. Hildebrandt, no Mich. 272; Tritt v. Hoover, 116 Mich. 4; Pittsburgh, etc., Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 118 Mich. 109. Minnesota. — Benz v. St. Paul, 89 Minn. 31. Missouri. — Diggs v. Kurtz, 132 Mo. 250, 53 Am. St. Rep. 488 ; Ernsting v. Gleason, 137 Mo. 594 ; Brummell v. Harris, 148 Mo. 430, 162 Mo. 397, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860; Schwartzer v. Gebhardt, 157 Mo. 99; McKinney v. Doane, 155 Mo. 287; Lemmons v. McKinney, 162 Mo. 525 ; Hopper v. Hickam, 169 Mo. 166. Montana. — Hoar v. Hennessy, 29 Mont. 253. Nebraska. — Lynch v. Egan, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 775; Egan v. Light, (Neb. 1903) 93 N. W. Rep. 859. New Hampshire. — Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399 (binds successors in interest). New York. — Bell v. Hayes, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 382 ; Blumenauer v. O'Connor, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 618, affirming (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 17; Smith v. Stacey, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 521. Oregon. — Thiessen v. Worthington, 41 Oregon 143-, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 860. Pennsylvania. — Farr v. Mullen, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 318; Reiter v. Mcjunkin, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 164, affirmed 194 Pa. St. 301 ; Grogan v. Leike, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 59 ; Dunlap v. Reardon, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 35. South Carolina. — Perry v. Jefferies, 61 S. Car. 292. Tennessee. — Mynatt v. Smart, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 27s. Texas. — Wardlow v. Harmon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 828; Sloan v. King, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 599 ; Masterson v. Bokel, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 509 ; Brown v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 49- Utah. — Lilly Min. Co. v. Kellogg, 24 Utah 195- Virginia. — Trammell v. Ashworth, 99 Va. 646, 3 Va. Sup. Ct. Rep. 446. West Virginia. — Le Comte v. Carson, (W. Va. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 238. Wisconsin. — Welton v. Poynter, 96 Wis. 346; Schlei v. Struck, 109 Wis. 598. The rule sustaining agreements as to division lines does not apply unless the lands of the parties to the agreement are contiguous. Cava- - naugh v. Wholey, 143 Cal. 164. Where the plaintiff claims the location of a boundary line by agreement, the agreement is not binding upon the defendant if there is no privity between the defendant and the person with whom plaintiff made his agreement. Con- nor v. Johnson, 59 S. Car, 115. A surveyor employed by one party to locate his boundary line has no power to bind his employer by an agreement with an adjoining owner as to the boundary line. Higginson v. Schaneback, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1040. A grantor after conveyance cannot bind his grantee by an agreement as to boundary line between adjoining owners. Donaldson v. Rail, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 336. One cotenant cannot bind the other cotenant by an agreement as to a disputed boundary line. Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah 257, 83 Am. St. Rep. 786. A Tenant has no power to bind his landlord by agreement as to boundary line. Cox v. Dougherty, 62 Ark. 629, 36 S. W. Rep. 184. In New Hampshire in order that parol agree- ment as to division line shall be binding, the line must be actually run. Glen Mfg. Co. v. Weston Lumber Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 242. Consideration. — The uncertainty as to the location of the boundary is a sufficient founda- tion or consideration for their agreement locat- ing the boundary. Thaxter v. Inglis, 121 Cal. 593 ; Gardner v. White, 74 S. W. Rep. 206, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2444; Brummell.!/. Harris, 148 Mo. 430. Where a Government Section line Is a True Boundary Line, still, if its true location is in doubt, the adjoining owners may, by parol agreement, establish a boundary line, though the line so established differs from the section line. LaMont v. Dickinson, 189 111. 628; Cox v. Dougherty, 62 Ark. 629, 36 S. W. Rep. 184. Agreement Is Binding at law as Well as in Equity. — Brown v. Bowerman, (Mich. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 352, 10 Detroit Leg. N. 659. Abandonment of Agreement Avoids it. — Geo- ghegan v. Turner, 82 S. W. Rep. 244, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 537. If the parties after agreeing on a disputed boundary line disregard such agreement by long course of conduct, the court will not enforce such agreement. Brummell v. Harris, 162 Mo. 397- Where a disputed boundary line is agreed on between the parties, the fact that in erecting a line fence the line agreed upon is departed from merely to accommodate the fence to a creek does not show an abandonment of the 710 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES. 861-864 861. See note I. 863. Line Fixed by Surveyors. — See note I. Where Boundary Is Known and Not in Doubt. — See note 2. An Erroneous Line Agreed on by Mistake. — See note 3. 3. Acquiescence — For -Period Greater than Statutory Period of Limitation. — 863. See note 2 864. For Other Periods ■ Conflict of Authority. — See note I . agreement fixing the line. Barnes v. Allison, 166 Mo. 96. Where an agreement fixing a disputed line is entered into, the mere negotiations between the parties with the view to fixing a different line is not an abandonment of the agreement. Masterson v. Bokel, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 509. Misrepresentation by One Party Avoids the Agreement. — Perry v. Hardy, 71 N. H. 151. Proof of Agreement. — Clark v. Thornburg, 66 NeD. 717; Francois v. Taylor, 71 N. H. 222. §01. 1. Such Agreement Not Affected by Stat- ute of Frauds. — Deidrich v. Simmons, _ (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 649; Steinhilber v. Holmes, 68 Kan. 607 ; Frazier v. Mineral Development Co., (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 983; Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399 ; Le Comte v. Fresh- water, 56 W. Va. 336, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860 ; Mays v. Hinch- man, (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 823. Eeasoa of Rule. — Sherman v. King, 71 Ark. 248, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860, 861. 862. 1. Line Bun by Surveyor According to Agreement. — Tonopah, etc., Min. Co. v. Tono- pah Min. Co., 125 Fed. Rep. 408, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 862 ; Mc- Combs v. Wall, 66 Ark. 336 ; Gullett v. Phillips, 153 Ind. 227; Schwartzer v. Gebhardt, 157 Mo. 99; Barnes v. Allison, 166 Mo. 96; Hitchcok v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399 ; Masterson v. Bokel, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 4.16. Evidence Held Insufficient to Show Agreement to Boundary Line Eun by Surveyor. — Dauer v. ' Hildebrandt, no Mich. 272. Effect of Failure of Surveyor to Run Line. — McCormick v. Applegate, 76 S. W. Rep. 511, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 914. 2. Parol Agreement as to Ascertained Boundary Ineffectual. — De Long v. Baldwin, in Mich. 466; OKn v. Henderson, 120 Mich. 149 (evi- dence held insufficient to show that boundary line was in dispute so as to sustain parol agree- ment thereto) ; Barnes v. Allison, 166 Mo. 96; Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399 (sufficiency of evidence to show doubt as to boundary line) ; Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah 257, 83 Am. St. Rep. 786; Le Comte v. Carson, (W. Va. 1904) 49 S. E. Rep. 238, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 860-861 ; Mays v. Hinchman, (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 823. In order to render an agreement fixing a boundary line binding on the parties, it is neces- sary that the location of the boundary line should be in dispute, and therefore, where the parties merely construct a division fence on what they think is the boundary line, it is not such an agreement as will he binding upon them. Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209. S. Erroneous Line Agreed on by Mistake. — Higgtnson v. Schaneback, 66 S. W. Rep. 1040, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2230 ; Alexander v. Parks, 72 S. W. Rep. 1 105, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 21 13; Hedges v. Pollard, 149 Mo. 216; McKinney v. Doane, 155 Mo. 287; Detwiler v. Toledo, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 297, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 572; Turner Falls Lumber Co. v. Burns, 71 Vt. 35s; Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209. 863. 2. Acquiescence for Statutory Period Binding — Arkansas. — Deidrich v. Simmons, (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 649. California. — Dierssen v. Nelson, 1 38 Cal. 394 ; Georgia. — Catoosa Springs Co. v. Webb, (Ga. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 942. Indiana. — Palmer v. Dosch, 148 Ind. 10; Helton v. Fastnow, 33 Ind. App. 288. Iowa. — Axmear v. Richards, 112 Iowa 657; Corey v. Ft. Dodge, 118 Iowa 742; Kennedy v. Niles, (Iowa 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 772. Kentucky. — Robards v. Rogers, (Ky. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 154; Tarvin -a. Walkers Creek Coal, etc., Co., (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 504; Frazier v. Mineral Development Co., (Ky. 1905) 86 S. W. Rep. 983. Michigan. — Michigan Soldiers' Home v. Jackman, 128 Mich. 679; F. H. Wolf Brick Co. v. Lonyo, 132 Mich. 162, 102 Am. St. Rep. 412, 9 Detroit Leg. N. 566 ; Lamb v. Lamb, (Mich. 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 645, 11 Detroit Leg. N. 80s. Minnesota. — Benz v. St. Paul, 89 Minn. 31. Missouri. — Lemmons v. McKinney, 162 Mo. 525- New York. — Katz v. Kaiser, 154 N. Y. 294, affirming 10 N. Y. App. Div. 137; Pearsall v. Westcott, 30 N. \ . App. Div. 99 ; Wentworth v. Braun, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 634, 175 N. Y. 515, affirming (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 702. Pennsylvania. — Peck v. Peck, 5 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 14s. Texas. — Sullivan v. Michael, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 1061. Utah. — Larsen v. Onesite, 21 Utah 38. West Virginia. — Mays v. Hinchman, (W. Va. 1905) 50 S. E. Rep. 823, Wisconsin. — Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209 ; Welton v. Poynter, 9.6 Wis. 346. Sec also Henderson v. Dennis, 177 111. 550, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 86.3. 864. 1. Acquiescence — Strength of Presump- tion Depends on Circumstances — Alabama. — Tay- lor v. Fomby, 116 Ala. 621, 67 Am. St. Rep. 149^ Connecticut. — Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. IS- Georgia. — Chewning v. Bryson, 108 Ga. 750.; Farr v. Woolfolk, 118 Ga. 277. Illinois. — Lourance v. Goodwin, 170 111. 390 (question of fact for Jury) ; Henderson v. Den- nis, 177 111. 547. Iowa. — Boyd v. Shoop„ 107 Iowa 10; Miller 711 864 867 BOUNDARIES. Vol. IV. 864. 865. 866. 867. note 3. Acquiescence in Boundaries Erroneously Marked. — See note 3- 4. Estoppel. — See note 4. Requisites of Estoppel — Knowledge. — See note 2. Mutual Mistake. — See note 3. Mistake Discovered in Survey. — See note I. The Purchase and Holding of Lands Bordered by a Disputed Boundary. See Agreement with One Adjoining Owner No Estoppel as to Another. — See note 5- Mere Acquiescenoe. — See note 6. v. Mills County, 1 1 1 Iowa 654, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 864 et seq.; Lawrence v. Washburn, 119 Iowa 109; Buch v. Flanders, 119 Iowa 164; O'Callaghan v. Whise- nand, 119 Iowa 566; Graham v. Gorman, (Iowa '903) 93 N. W. Rep. 595 ; Klinkefus v. Van- meter, 122 Iowa 412; Dows Real Estate, etc., Co. v. Emerson, (Iowa 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 724; Rattray v. Talcott, 124 Iowa 398; Harn- don v. Stultz, 124 Iowa 734. Kentucky. — Liter v. Shirley, (Ky. 1896) 3s S. W. Rep. 550 ; Hall «.. Conlee, 62 S. W. Rep. 899, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 177; Castleman v. Common School Dist. No. 42, 68 S. W. Rep. 17, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 88. Michigan. — Tritt v. Hoover, 116 Mich. 4; Husted v. Willoughby, 117 Mich. 56 (acquies-. cence for fifteen years). Missouri. — Brummell v. Harris, 148 Mo. 430; McKinney v. Doane, 155 Mo. 287; Barnes v. Allison, 166 Mo. 96. Nebraska. — Clark v. Thornburg, 66 Neb. 717; Nance County v. Russell, (Neb. 1903) 97 N. W. Rep. 320. New York. — Bell v. Hayes, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 382; People v. Hall, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 117. Pennsylvania. — Omensetter v. Kemper, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 309, 41 W. N. C. (Pa.) 501; Rook v. Greenwalt, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 642 (acquies- cence for twelve years). Texas. — Stark v. Homuth, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 761 ; Wardlow v. Harmon, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 45 S. W. Rep. 828. Washington. — Denny v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Wash. 298. Wisconsin. — Wollman v. Ruehle, 100 Wis. 31- Acquiescence between the adjoining property owners as to the boundary line may be suffi- cient to show an implied agreement thereto which will be binding on the parties. Ernsting v. Gleason, 137 Mo. 594. 864. 3. Acquiescence in Erroneous Line Not Conclusive. — Boone v. Graham, 215 111. 511; Palmer v. Osborne, 115 Iowa 714; Stier v. Latreyte, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) so S. W. Rep. 589; Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209. §65. 4. Estoppel — Arkansas. — • Diedrich v. Simmons, (Ark. 1905) 87 S. W. Rep. 649. Connecticut. — Lowndes v. Wicks, 69 Conn. IS- Illinois. — Joliet v. Werner, 166 111. 34 (es- toppel against municipality as to street line). See also Henderson v. Dennis, 177 111. 551, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 865. Iowa. — Corey v. Ft. Dodge, 1 1,8 Iowa 742 ; Rowell v. Weinemann, 119 Iowa 256, 97 Am. St. Rep. 310; Ross v. Ferree, 95 Iowa 604. Michigan. — Mowers v. Evers, 117 Mich. 93 (disclaiming title on faith of which another purchases) ; Pittsburgh, etc., Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 118 Mich. 109. Minnesota. — Benz v. St. Paul, 89 Minn. 31; Thompson v. Borg, 90' Minn. 209 (inducing per- son to purchase adjoining land with reference to particular line). New York. — Blumenauer v. O'Connor, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 17. Oregon. — Walla Walla First Nat. Bank v. McDonald, 42 Oregon 257 ; Clark v. Hindman, (Oregon 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 56. Tennessee. — Mynatt v. Smart, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 270 (purchase by two grantees from common grantor — the latter grantee purchasing on faith of line acquiesced in between grantor and grantee). Texas. — Holland v. Thompson, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 471. West Virginia. — Summerfield v. White, 54 W. Va. 311. Wisconsin. — Schlei v. Struck, 109 Wis. 598. §66. 2. Knowledge Requisite to Estoppel. — Wells v. Hall, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 61 (survey to complete sale — failure of ad- joining owner to object to accuracy of survey) ; Reed v. Phillips, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 33 S. W. Rep. 986. 3. Adjoining Owners Equally Chargeable with Notice. — Boone v. Graham, 215 111. 511; Jor- dan v. Ferree, 101 Iowa 440. 867. 1. Mistake in Survey. — Granby Min., etc., Co. v. Davis, 156 Mo. 422; Wiley v. Lind- ley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 1001. 3. Purchase of Land on Disputed Boundary. — Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399. 5. Langermann v. Nichols, (Tex. Civ. App. •893) 32 S. W. Rep. 124. 6. United States. — King v. Watkins, 98 Fed. Rep. 913 (effect of private survey by a land- owner as against himself and grantees) ; Ulman v. Clark, 100 Fed. Rep. 180; Belding v. Hebard, 103 Fed. Rep. 532, 43 C. C. A. 296. Illinois. — St. Bede College v. Weber, 168 111. 324; Clayton v. Feig, 179 111. 534; Boone v. Graham, 215 111. 511. Kentucky. — Stoughton v. Rice, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 1083; Higginson v. Schaneback, 66 S. W. Rep. 1040, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2230. Louisiana. — -Williams v. Bernstein, 51 La. Ann. 115. Massachusetts. — Iverson v. Swan, 169 Mass. 582 (the mere fact that a landowner builds upon what he thinks the boundary line does not preclude him from claiming to the true line). Missouri. ; — Brummell v. Harris, 148 Mo. 430 (acquiescence in improvements by adjoining owner) ; Hedges v. Pollard, 149 Mo. 216 712 Vol. IV. BOUNDARIES — BRAKEMAN. 867-873 867. XII. Boundaries Fixes by Apportionment — where a vacant space Exists. — See note 8. 868. Where a Discrepancy Exists. — See notes I, 2. In the Congressional Surveys. — See note 4. 869. XIII. Identification of Boundary — Miscellaneous Rules. — See note 1. [XIV. Miscellaneous Matters. — See note ia.~\ BOUNTIES. — See note 3. 871. [BOWLINE KNOT. — See note 2a. ] 873. BRAKEMAN. — See note 1. (acquiescence in erection of fence) ; Patton v. Smith, 171 Mo. 231, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 867. New Hampshire. — Heywood v. Wild River Lumber Co., 70 N. H. 24. Rhode Island. — Taber v. Hall, 23 R. I. 613. Texas. — Vogt v. Geyer, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 1 100; Pierce v. Schram, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 716 (erec- tion of fence within boundary line) ; Wiley v. Lindley, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 1 00 1 ; Hornberger v. Giddings, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 283. Virginia. — Fry v. Stowers, 92 Va. 13. Wisconsin. — Peters v. Reichenbach, 114 Wis. 209. Where the grantee had already purchased the land from his grantor, the fact that the ad- joining owner admitted the line pointed out by the grantor to the grantee as a boundary line does not estop him to deny that it was the true line, as the grantee did not rely in his purchase upon any act or representation of the adjoining owner. Davidson v. Pickard, (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 374- Fencing Within Boundary Line. — - A man is under no legal or moral obligation to set his fences on the true boundary line. Therefore, the mere fact that one places his fence within the line of his land does not give his neighbor the right to the land fenced out. Reiter v. Mc- Junkin, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 164, affirmed 194 Pa. St. 301. 867. 8. Apportionment. — Bennett!/. Simon, 132 Ind. 490, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 868; Schuster v. Myers, 148 Mo. 422; Porter v. Gaines, 151 Mo. 560; Halsell v. McCutchen, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 72. See also Lewis v. Prien, 98 Wis. 87. 868. 1. When Discrepancy Affects All the Lots in a Block. — Clayton v. Feig, 179 111. 534; Brooks v. Stanley, 66 Neb. 826. 2. Anderson v. Wirth, 131 Mich. 183, 9 De- troit Leg. N. 234. 4. Congressional Surveys. — Underwood v. Smith, 109 Wis. 334 (U. S. Rev. Stat, § 2396). 869. 1. Where the Point of Beginning and the Three Last Corners Are Monuments. — Wheeler v. State, 114 Ala. 22 (proof of actual re-survey). la. Liability of Surveyor for Negligence in Sur- vey. — Halsey „. Hobbs, (Ky. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 415. Statutes Prohibiting Removal of Monuments. — Ropes v. Flint, 182 Mass. 473. Criminal Prosecution for Removal of Landmarks — State v. Ferguson, 82 Mo. App. 583. 3. In Downs v. U. S., 187 1J. S. 501, the court said : "A bounty is denned by Web- ster as ' a premium offered or given to in- duce men to enlist into the public service ; or to encourage any branch of industry, as husbandry or manufactures.' And by Bouvier, as 'an additional benefit conferred upon or a compensation paid to a class of persons.' In a conference of representatives of the principal European powers, specially convened at Brus- sels in 1898 for the purpose of considering the question of sugar bounties, the definition of bounty was examined by the conference sitting in committee, who made the following report : ' The conference, while reserving the question of mitigations and provisional disposition that may be authorized, if need be by reason of exceptional situations, is of opinion that boun- ties whose abolition is desirable are un- derstood to be all the advantages conceded to manufacturers and refiners by the fiscal legisla- tion of the states, and that, directly or indi- rectly, are borne by the public treasury. There should be classified as such, notably (a) The direct advantages granted in case of exporta- tion. (6) The direct advantages granted to production, (c) The total or partial exemptions from taxation granted to a portion of the manu- factured products, (d) The indirect advantages growing out of surplus or allowance in manu-. facturing effected beyond the legal estimates. (e) The profit that may be derived from an excessive drawback." 871. 2a. A Bowline Knot is one in which a loop " can be made of any size, and does not jam nor render." Cent. Diet., quoted in Trapp v. McClellan, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 362. 873. 1. In Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. An- derson, 93 Va. 650, the court said : " The word bralceman is defined by Webster as follows : ' The man whose business it is to manage the brake on railways.' " 713 BRANDS AND MARKS. 874. I. Definitions and Preliminary Observations — Brandt upon Animals. — See note 2. 875. II. Bbands and Marks as Evidence — 1. Generally. — See note 5. 2. Recorded Brands— a. Statutes Regulating Use as Evidence. — See note 7. 876. Evidence ol Identity of Animal. — See note I. Ear and Flesh Marks. — See note 2. Whether Recorded Brands Are Prima Facie Evidence of Ownership. — See notes 4, 5. 877. b. Proof of Becord. Provisions and Regulations as to Recording Brands ■ — See note 1. 874. 2. Harks and Brands Distinguished. — In Churchill v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 108 Ga. 265, the court said : " When we speak of the ' marks and brands ' used by an owner of stock to designate his property and distinguish it from property of like character belonging to others, every one understands the expression to include only those devices placed upon stock by artificial means. The word ' brand ' indi- cates some figure or device burned upon the animal by a hot iron, and the word ' mark ' indicates generally some change made in some part of the animal by a knife or other means, such as boring or slitting the ear. The ' brand ' is more commonly used upon some animals as a means of identification, such as horses, mules, and the like ; while others are generally identi- fied by ' marks ' made by knife-cuts in the ear, such as cattle, hogs, and the like." 875. 5. Brand Not Conclusive Evidence of Ownership in Replevin Suit. — Debord v. Johnson, H Colo. App. 402. Evidence of Custom. — Where the issue was as to the ownership of the animal, evidence as to a custom that prevailed in regard to placing a certain brand on all calves when parties did not know to whom they belonged was not per- tinent ; as, if such a custom did prevail, action in pursuance of the custom could not deprive a person of his property. Rumfield v, Nea], (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 262. 7. Statutes — Only Recorded Brands Evidence Of Ownership. — Sapp v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 456; Walton v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 454 ; Chowning v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 81; Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 330; Turner v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 322 ; Brooke v- People, 23 Colo. 375 ; Welch v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 338. a Theft of Cattle — Proof of Ownership by Brand Recorded After Theft. — State v. Hanna, 35 Oregon 195, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 876 ; State v. Morse, 35 Oregon 462 ; Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 330 ; Tur- ner v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 322 ; Chowning v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 81 ; Welch v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 338. Brand Defectively Recorded not admissible to prove ownership. Steed v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. S6f. 876. 1. Proof of Identity by Unrecorded Brands. — Sapp v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 456 ; Chowning v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 81; Turner v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 322; Brooke v. People, 23 Colo. 375 ; Welch v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 338. Identity Proved by Brand Defectively Recorded. — Steed v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 567. Brand on Animal Different from Recorded Brand. — Where the brand on an alleged stolen ani- mal is different from the recorded brand of the owner, it does not constitute evidence of owner- ship, but may be looked to as any other flesh mark which might serve to identify the animal. Garrett v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 521. 2. Proof of Ownership- by Unrecorded Mark. — In Turner v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 322, it was held that a person or company could have but one recorded brand ; and, if such person or com- pany had more than one recorded brand, said brands could be regarded as no more than flesh marks on the animal so branded, which could be used, not as evidence of ownership in con- nection with the recorded brand, but simply as evidence to establish the identity of such owner- ship, and that this identity in connection with other proof might, of course, show ownership. In Swan v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 464, the court said : " The holding in Turner's Case is not authority for the propo- sition that, where a person or company has several recorded brands and marks, either or all of said brands cannot be offered in evidence, but merely relates to the effect of such recorded brand where the party has more than one." See also Welch v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 338. 4. Dickson v. Territory, (Ariz. 1899) 56 Pac. Rep. 971. See also Debord v.. Johnson, 11 Colo. App. 4Q2. 6. In Turner v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 322, it was held that a brand recorded prior to the theft does not constitute indisputable evidence of ownership, but is merely prima facie proof thereof subject to rebuttal. 877. 1. Proof by Certified Copy — Authenti- cation of Date of Registration. — Dickson v. Ter- ritory, (Ariz. 1899) 56 Pac. Rep. 971. Record Is Evidence in Any County in State. — Walton v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 454. Conflict Between Brand in Certificate and on 714 Vol. IV. BRANDS AND MARKS — BRASS KNUCKLES. 877-880 877. Fart of the Animal to Be Branded Must Be Designated. — See note 3. 878. Only One Brand to Be Used by One Person. — See note I. IV. Offenses Connected with Brands and Masks — 1. Generally. — See note 6. 879. 2. Illegal Branding. — See note i. 8. Alteration of Brands and Marks. — See note 4. BRANDY. — See note 5. 880. BRASS KNUCKLES. — See note 2. Animal. — In Garrett v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 521, the court said : " The certificate of the brand being admissible in evidence, then other testimony to reconcile and explain the conflict between the brand in the purported certificate and that actually placed on the animal was ad- missible, that is, it was admissible to show how the particular brand on the alleged stolen ani- mal came to be placed there instead of the re- corded brand." 877. 3. Steed v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 567. Side of Animal Need Not Be Designated, — Reese v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 539. Shoulder or Side. — A record of a brand desig- nating the place of the brand on the animal in the alternative, as either on the" shoulder or side " (that is, different parts on the same side ot the animal), is defective. Reese v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 539. §78. 1. See Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 330. 6. The Texas Penal Code of 1895, Art. 932, imposes a penalty upon any one who originally uses more than one brand in the branding of cattle. Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 330. 879. 1. Intent to Prevent Identification. — In construing a California statute providing that one who in any way marks any animal therein named, belonging to another, with in- tent thereby to prevent identification thereof by the true owner, is guilty of a felony, the court said : " It can make no difference that the mark placed on the animal is not of & character usually adopted for the purpose of indicating ownership, or that it may not accomplish the purpose of preventing identification. These are matters that may properly weigh with the jury in determining as to the intent with which the marking was done. It is the placing of any mark on such an animal, with the intent thereby to prevent identification by the true owner, that constitutes the crime. That one who slits the ears of a horse or colt thereby ' marks ' the same, within the ordinary meaning of that word, is clear." People v. Strombeck, 145 Cal. no. 4. Elements of the Offense. — In Samples v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep, 1041, the court said : " In order to constitute this offense, it must be shown (1) that the accused marked the animals of another, (2) without consent of the owner, and (3) with intent to defraud." In Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630, the court said : " It is the fraudulent altering or chang- ing of the mark or brand upon an animal of an- other, with intent to claim the same, that is denounced by the statute ; and it is not a neces- sary ingredient of the offense that the altered mark or brand should be claimed by the de- fendant or any other person. The ownership of the altered mark or brand might constitute a circumstance proper to be considered in deter- mining the question of defendant's intent in effecting the alteration, but the statute does not make it an essential ingredient of the offense, so as to require it to be noticed in framing the indictment." Evidence Held Sufficient to Convict. — Samples v. State, (Tex. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 1041 ; Diaz v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 632. The Punishment for altering the mark on a hog, under the Texas statutes, is a felony, with- out regard to the value of the hog. Barfield v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 333, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 1104. And the same rule applies in Arkansas. Houston v. State, 66 Ark. 607. 6. The Court Will Take Notice. — State v. Lewis, 86 Minn. 174. 880. 2. Brass Knuckles. — See Morrison v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 392 ; Louis v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 52. 715 BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. By X. P. Huddy. 889. I. Definition and History — Definition. — See note i. History — Soman Law. — See note 2. 883. In England. — See note I. II. The Conteact — 1. Capacity of Parties — infante. — See notes 5, 7,9- Harried Persona. — bee note 12. 884. Fromiie While Decree of Divorce Forbidding Second Marriage Operative. — See note I. 2. Form and Proof of the Contract — a. In General — Mutuality. — See note 8. Express Wordi Unnecessary. — See note IO. 883. 1. Bight of Action Exists Independent Of Legislation. — Parker v. Forehand, 99 Ga. 743. The Action Is Not a Tort Action, although it partakes somewhat of the character of such an action. Broyhill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190. Procuring Breach. — In Leonard u. Whetstone, (Ind. App. 1903) 68 N. E. Rep. 197, it was held that it was not an actionable wrong for parents to induce their son to refuse to carry out a marriage contract. Action Does Not Survive Death of Party. — French v. Merrill, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 612, ap- peal dismissed 157 N. Y. 704. 2. Action Affects Character. — In Hullett v. Baker, 101 Tenn. 689, it was held that an ac- tion for breach of promise abated on the death of the defendant, since it comes within the ex- cepting clause of the statute (Shannon's Tenn. Code, 5 4569), which provides that "no civil ection commenced, whether founded on wrongs or contracts, except for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff, shall abate by the death of either party, but may be revived." 883. 1. See Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294, wherein the early practice in England is dis- cussed. 5, Wells v. Hardy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 454. 7. Promise of Infant. — Wells v. Hardy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 454, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 883. 9. See Wells v. Hardy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 454. 12. Promise by Parties Already Married. — A promise of marriage made to a married party known to be such is void. Davis v. Pryor, (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. Rep. 274, reversing 3 Indian Ter. 396; Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 651. When Married Party Is Liable on Promise. — " The law unquestionably is settled that a married person can enter into a contract of mar- riage, and thereby become responsible in dam- ages to the other contracting party, provided the party with whom the married person contracts is ignorant of the fact that the person is mar- ried." Davis v. Pryor, 3 Indian Ter. 396, judg- ment reversed (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. Rep. 274. 884. 1. Statute Forbidding Second Marriage for Certain Time. — In Buelna v. Ryan, 139 Cal. 630, it was held, under a statute making a subsequent marriage illegal and void when contracted by a divorced person within one year subsequent to the divorce, that a divorced, person could, before the expiration of the. time, agree to marry after the time. 8. Must Be an Offer — Mere Intention Insuf- ficient. — A charge which substantially stated that if the defendant told or held out to other persons that he was to marry the plaintiff, his promise was established, etc., was held to be erorneoUs. Tamke v. Vangsnes, 72 Minn. 236. Burden of Proving Promise Is on Plaintiff. — McPhail v. Trovillo, 65 111. App. 660. Breach of Former Promise No Bar to Proof of New Promise. — The fact that a previous prom- ise had been made by the defendant and a breach thereof taken place does not consti- tute a bar to the introduction of evidence that a new and subsequent promise had been made. Pyle v. Piercy, 122 Cal. 383. Evidence Warranting Finding of New and Independent Promise. — In an action for the breach of a contract to marry, it appeared that in February, 1901, the parties had agreed to marry in March, 1902. In June, 1901, they had a conversation, in which the plaintiff said to the defendant : " Do you intend to marry me as you promised, or are you making a fool of me ? " To which the defendant replied : " I intend to marry you as I promised. In March we will go on the farm and live right. I will either buy or build." It was held that, under all the facts of the case, the jury was war- ranted in finding that the latter part of the defendant's statement constituted a present, new, and independent promise, and not a mere declaration of a continuing obligation previously incurred. Parrish v. Parrish, 67 Kan. 323. 10. Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277 ; Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61. When Express Contract Is Question for Jury. — Where a party brought an action on an ex- press contract to marry, which contract was not based on any particular letter, promise, or act, and the defendant claimed that an offer by him 716 Vol. IV. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. 885-888 885. 886. 887. 888. Acceptance. — See note I. Where Promise Is by Deed. — See note 2. Acceptance Must Be Made Known to Other Party. — See note 6. b. May Be Inferred from Conduct. — See note i. See notes 3, 5. Preparations in Absence of Other Party. — See note I. was answered by a letter containing a condi- • tional acceptance, and evidence was introduced to the effect that the letter was an uncondi- tional acceptance, also that subsequent to the letter the parties agreed to be married at a certain time, the court held that the question whether there was an express contract to marry, even though the letter was a conditional accept- ance, was properly submitted to the jury. Olm- stead v. Hoy, 112 Iowa 349. §85. 1. Mutuality Necessary. — Smyth v. Greacen, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 275. Offer and Acceptance Constitute Contract. — Where there are no legal disabilities existing, an offer of marriage by one person to another, and an acceptance of such offer, constitute a marriage contract. Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277; Broyhill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190. Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Promise. — Where the testimony was that the defendant asked the plaintiff to marry him ; that she con- sented ; that he asked her to go to his home and prepare it for the marriage ; and that the day for the marriage was fixed, it was held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the promise. Lauer v. Schmidt, 25 Ind. App. 54. 2. Promise by Seed. — ■ Sponable v. Owens, 92 Mo. App. 174. 6. Acceptance Must Be Known to Other Party. — Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277. 886. 1. Contract Inferred from Circumstances. — Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277 ; Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61 ; Edge v. Griffin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 148. Evidence of Destroyed Letter. — In Shields v. Lewis, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 803, it was held that it did not constitute error to admit the plaintiff's testimony as to the contents of letters containing promises of marriage written to her by the defendant, but which were de- stroyed by the plaintiff in good faith. Bepresentations Concerning Defendant's Wealth. — In Humphrey v. Brown, 89 Fed. Rep. 640, it was held that representations which the de- fendant made to the plaintiff concerning his wealth, whether true or false, would be admis- sible for the purpose of explaining the situation and relation of the parties. Letters Concerning Business and Other Women. — Letters concerning the defendant's business and relations with other women are admissible. Geiger v. Payne, 102 Iowa 581. When Construction of Correspondence Is for Jury. — The construction of correspondence was held to have been properly left to the jury where oral testimony was given concerning some of the letters which were lost. Barber v. Geer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 176. Where the contract is evidenced in part by letters and in part by parol, its construction is for the jury. But no injury is done by per- mitting the plaintiff to place a construction on \\ whe^e her answer is inconclusive and is given merely as her supposition. Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294. Admissions After Suit Is Brought. — Admissions of the defendant even after suit is brought may be considered. Lohner v. Coldwell, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 444. Admissions Made by the Plaintiff to persons not invited \o the wedding, and before the wedding day was fixed, were held to be inadmissible to establish the contract. Liebrandt v. Sorg, (Cal. 1901) 65 Pac. Rep. 318. Declarations Made After Breach. — Declarations to a third party tending to show a promise are admissible, even if made after the breach. Geiger v. Payne, 102 Iowa 581. Relation of Parties Where One Was Married. — Evidence showing the relation of the par- ties which existed before the divorce of the woman is admissible as bearing on the question whether a promise of marriage was made after the divorce and as showing the circumstances under which the plaintiff had rendered services as alleged. Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 651. Evidence whether the plaintiff had ever met the defendant in a certain city while he was living with his first wife was held to be ad- missible. While at that time the defendant was incapable of entering into a matrimonial contract, yet it was proper to show the origin and continuation of their acquaintance, for the purpose of aiding the jury in determining the probability of an offer of marriage at a subse- quent time, when he had legal capacity to make it. Hahn v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512. Evidence of Previous Engagement. — In an ac- tion for the breach of a contract to marry, it is not error to admit in evidence, in corrobora- tion of direct testimony of an express contract between the parties, a previous contract of mar- riage, included in their past intercourse with each other. This rule does not, however, for- bid the court from excluding testimony only remotely affecting the latest relations of the parties, although involved in their previous in- tercourse, and does not compel the court to permit the complete rehabilitation of all the minute details of a long-past association, which could be of no material aid in elucidating the issues on trial. Parrish v. Parrish, 67 Kan. 323- Evidence of Defendant's Plight Is Inadmissible. — -Wise v. Schloesser, in Iowa 16. 887. 3. Understanding of Friends and Rela- tions. — Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294, holding that it may be shown by the plaintiff that she stated to her family that she was engaged to the defendant. 5. Preparations for Marriage. — Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61, supporting the text paragraph generally. 888. 1. Hahn v. Bettingen, 81 Minn. 91, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 887 [888]; Leibrandt v. Sorg, (CaL 1901) 65 Pac. Rep. 318, 7'7 888-891 BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. Vol. IV. STATUTE OF FRAUDS — Promisee in Consideration of Marriage. See 888. notes s, 6. 889., note 5. 890. 891. When Not to Be Performed Within a Year. — See note 7. When Contract May or May Not Be Performed in One Year. — See note 9. 3, Consideration. — See notes 1,3. 4. Conditional Promises — General Rule. — See note 4. Marriage to Be in Accordance with Customs of Particular Religion. — See In Restraint of Marriage. — See note 3. And Marriage Erokage Bonds. — See note 5. HI, THE BREACH — Time of Performance — General Rule. — See note 6. Even if a Day Is Fixed. — See note 8. Request and Refusal — General Rule. — See note I. Where Request Not Necessary. — See notes 7, 9, II, 12. §88. 6. Not "Agreements Made in Considera- tion of Marriage." — Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294. 6. Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294, wherein the subject is fully discussed. 7. When Not to Be Perfprmed Within One Year. — MacElree v. Wolfersberger, 59 Kan. '105, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 888. See also Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619. Contra, Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294. (In Maryland the English statute of 29 Car. II. was in force, under which this case was decided). 9. Where the Contract May or May Not Be Per- formed Within One Year. — Hellenthal v. Bleuhm, 13 Ohio Dec. 513, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 888 ; Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619. 889. 1. Mutual Promises the Consideration. — Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 882-889. Agreement to Marry as Consideration for Other Agreements. — An agreement to marry is a valuable consideration upon which other lawful agreements may be based. Such an agreement may be a valuable consideration which will sup- port a promise that may be void, as for ex- ample the promise of a father to the mother to support a bastard. Sponable v. Owens, 92 Mo. App. 174. 3. Future Intercourse. — Edmonds v. Hughes, 115 Ky. 561 ; Spellings v. Parks, 104 Tenn. 351, holding, however, that where a contract was made the basis for obtaining the intercourse, and as a result of the promise intercourse was consummated, the contract was not illegal. 4. Promise on Condition. — Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294, holding that a conditional promise is valid. A contract of marriage to be performed upon the death of a divorced spouse is not void for uncertainty. Browne Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 889. Where an engagement of marriage is entered into, the marriage to take place on the happen- ing of a future event, the law implies that the' promise shall be fulfilled within a reasonable time thereafter, which may depend, where no specific date is named, upon the character of such event. Birum v. Johnson, 87 Minn. 362. 5. Waneck v. Kratky, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 651. 718 890. 3. In Restraint of Marriage. — Where the terms of the contract restrained the parties from marrying other parties, it was held that the contract did not constitute an unlawful re- straint of marriage. Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. 5. Contract to Be Performed upon Death of Divorced Spouse. — A contract to be performed upon the death of the man's divorced wife is not void as against public policy as an induce- ment to the destruction of life. Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. 6. Where Promise Is General. — Grubbs v. Pence, (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 785; Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619. See also Clement v. Skinner, 72 Vt. 159. When Time Is Question for Jury. — Where the pleadings raise an issue of fact as to the time agreed upon, it is proper to submit the issue to the jury. Hesse v. Seyp, 88 Mo. App. 66. Evidence of Plaintiff's Statements — Hearsay, — Where the fact of a long-standing engage- ment was admitted, and the inquiry was as to who was at fault for the breach of the con- tract, persons to whom the plaintiff said that she heard the defendant say to his mother that he proposed to study it over before he married the plaintiff, cannot testify as to the statements made to them by the plaintiff, as such evidence is hearsay. Ranck v. Brackbill, 209 Pa. St. 499- 8. Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277; Clark v. Corey, 24 R. I. 137. The Performance of the Contract May Be Post- poned by one party, even without the consent of the other, for a good and sufficient reason. Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277. 891. 1. When Request Necessary. — Rime p. Rater, 108 Iowa 61 ; Grubbs v. Pence, (Ky. 190.1) 73 S. W. Rep. 785; Broyhill v. Norton, 17s, Mo. 190; Clark v. Corey, 2% R. I. 137. Request Once Refused. — After the defendant has once refused to marry the plaintiff on re- quest, a further request is not necessary. Buelna v. Ryan, 139 Cal. 630. See also Grubbs f. Pence, (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 785 ; Broy- hill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190. 7. Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61. Lapse. of Time and Conduct Amounting to Re- fusal. — Where a party has promised another to fulfil a marriage contract on return from a trip abroad, lapse of time and the conduct of such party after his return which show that he does not intend to fulfil his promise, may be re- Vol. IV. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. 893-895 893. IV. Defenses — 1. Character and Habits — fendant. — See note 4. Unohastity Known to Defendant. — See note 6. 893. Mutual Improprieties and Lewdness. — See note 3. 2. Disease. — See note 7. 894. Physioal Condition of Woman. — See note I. 895. 4. Release — Renewal. — See note 3. Unohastity Unknown to De- garded as the equivalent of a refusal to do so, and dispense with a request to consummate marriage by the other party. Birum v. John- son, 87 Minn. 362. 891. 9. Repudiation of Promise. — Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. A Mere Bequest for Postponement for an ex- pressed and reasonable cause does not amount to a repudiation of the contract. Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277. 11. When Suit May Be Brought Immediately. — Zatlin v. Davenport, 71 111. App. 292; Lewis v. Tapman, 90 Md. 294 ; Trammell v. Vaughan, 138 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302. See also Walters v. Stockberger, 20 Ind. App. 277 ; Waneck v. Kratky, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 651. IS. Where Defendant Has Married Another. — Folz v. Wagner, 24 Ind. App. 694 ; Hellenthal v. Bleuhm, 13 Ohio Dec. 514, supporting the text paragraph; Clark v. Corey, 24 R. I. 137; Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. 892. 4. Unchastity of Woman.— Bowman u. Bowman, 153 Ind. 498; Edmonds v. Hughes, 115 Ky. 56 1 ; Markham v. Herrick, 82 Mo. App. 327 ; Welker v. Metcalf, 209 Pa. St. 373 ; Wil- liams v. Fahn, 119 Iowa 746, holding that specific acts of unchastity need not be shown ; La Porte v. Wallace, 89 111. App. 517, hold- ing that what constitutes a legal cause for re- fusing to carry out the contract is a question of law for the court. Evidence of Beputation Is Competent. — The character of the plaintiff for chastity, when at- tacked, can always be sustained by evidence of -reputation. Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 651. Evidence of Unchastity After Bringing Suit should not be admitted. Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 174. 6. Unchastity Known to Defendant. — Bowman v. Bowman, 153 Ind. 498; Walker v. Metcalf, 209 Pa. St. 373. When Question of Knowledge Is Not for Jury. — Where there is no evidence that the defend- ant, at the time of the alleged promise to marry, had any knowledge of the conduct of the plain- tiff being other than that of a chaste and vir- tuous woman, it is error to submit to the jury the question whether or not the defendant knew that the plaintiff was of bad character for chastity at the time he entered into the alleged marriage contract. Welker v. Metcalf, 209 Pa. St. 373- 893. 3. Fleetford v. Barnett, 11 Colo. App. 77; Dunn v. Trout, 87 111. App. 432. 7. Disease. — Vierling v. Binder, 113 Iowa 337; Gardner v. Arnett, (Ky. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 840, holding that the mere fact that the de- fendant, after a disease reappeared, talked over the matter of getting married and expressed a willingness to marry, did not deprive him of the right to rely on the defense. In Smith v. Compton, 67 N. J. L. 548, the court refused to sanction the doctrine estab- lished by Allen v. Baker, 86 N. Car. 91, 41 Am. Rep. 444, and Shackleford v. Hamilton, 93 Ky. 80, 40 Am. St. Rep. 166. It was held that the disease must make the performance of the marriage contract impossible in order to excuse performance. If the party without fault contracts a disease between the date of the contract and the date set for the marriage, which renders it unsafe for him to marry, he may have a postponment until the result of the disease is known or he is cured ; this, too, whether or not the woman knows of his condition, or consents to such an arrangement. Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302. In Sanders v. Coleman, 97 Va. 690, it was held that a contract to marry is coupled with the implied condition that both of the parties shall remain in the enjoyment of life and health, and if the condition of the parties has so changed that the marriage state would endanger the life or health of either, a breach of the contract is excusable. See also Waneck v. Kratky, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 651. 894. 1, Vierling v. Binder, 113 Iowa 337. Operation Incapacitating Woman. — It is a good defense that the woman, subsequent to the promise, unnecessarily underwent an operation which made her incapable of procreation. Ed- monds v. Hughes, 115 Ky. 561. 895. 3. Belease. — Kellett v. Robie, 99 Wis. 303- Circumstances Held Not a Belease. — In Folz v. Wagner, 24 Ind. App. 694, it was held that a letter containing expressions of regret and forgiveness, written by the plaintiff to the de- fendant in answer to a letter from the defend- ant announcing his intention not to marry the plaintiff, did not constitute a release. Evidence of Release. — Where the contract was admitted by the defendant, and the disputed question before the jury was whether the con- tract was terminated by mutual consent, or whether it was broken by the defendant, and the jury decided that the contract was terminated by mutual consent, the court was of the opinion that testimony introduced for the purpose of showing the existence of a lack of harmony be- tween the defendant (who was the pastor of a church of which the plaintiff was a member) and the plaintiff with relation to church work, offered on the theory that it tended to sustain the case made by the defendant that the en- gagement was terminated by mutual consent, was competent ; but even if it was not, it was immaterial, and its admission was a harmless error. Justice v. Davis, (N. J. 1904) 59 Atl. Rep. 6. Burden of Proving Belease Is on Defendant. — Liese v. Meyer, 143 Md. 547. 719 895 897 BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. Vol. IV. §99. 896. 897. Postponement. — See note 4. Renewal. — See note 7. V. Damages — 1. General Principles. — See note 4. Discretion of Jury. — See notes 5> 6. Exemplary Damages. — See note I . Circumstances to Be Considered in Estimating Damages. — See notes 2, 3, 4, 5i 6,8. 895. 4. Evidence of Acquiescing in Post- ponement. — Evidence that the plaintiff sold property at a sacrifice in order to be prepared to be married, to the knowledge of the defend- ant, without any claim on his part that the con- tract was not binding, is admissible to show whether the plaintiff acquiesced in the post- ponement of the marriage. Clement v. Skin- ner, 72 Vt. 159. 7. Waneck v. Kratky, (Neb. 1903) 96 N. W. Rep. 651. 896. 4. Parker v. Forehand, 99 Ga. 743. No Fixed Measure of Compensation Can Be Laid Sown. — La Porte v. Wallace, 89 111. App. 517; Hahn v. Bettingen, 81 Minn. 91. Services Bendered in Consideration of Promise. — Where the value of services which were rendered to the defendant in consideration of his promise and pending the engagement was sought to be recovered, and a recovery for the breach of the promise of marriage was also sought, it was held that a recovery for the breach of promise was equivalent to perform- ance which precluded a recovery for the ser- vices. Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 651. 5. Discretion of Jury. — Parker v. Forehand, 99 Ga. 743 ; Poehlmann v. Kertz, 105 111. App. 249, affirmed 204 111. 418 ; Lauer v. Schmidt, 25 Ind. App. 54; Hooker v. Phillippe, 26 Ind. App. 501 ; Geiger v. Payne, 102 Iowa 581 ; Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61 ; Herriman v. Layman, 118 Iowa 590 ; Hahn v. Bettingen, 81 Minn. 91; Hahn v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512; Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 1 74 ; Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. Illustrations. — In Mainz v. Lederer, 21 R. I. 370, a verdict of twelve thousand five hundred dollars was held not to be excessive. 6. Prejudice, Passion, or Corruption, — McCarty v. Heryford, 125 Fed. Rep. 46; La Porte v. Wallace, 89 111. App. 517; Gardner v. Arnett, (Ky. 1899) s° S. W. Rep. 840; Broyhill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190; Kolsch v. Jewell, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 581 ; Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 174; Kellett v. Robie, 99 Wis. 303. 897. 1. Exemplary Damages. — Jacoby v. Stark, 205 111. 34 ; Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 174. But see Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302, wherein it is stated that exemplary or punitive damages, as such, cannot be recovered for the breach of a contract of marriage. Matter in Aggravation Must Appear. — The jury is restricted to compensatory damages, unless matter in aggravation appears. La Porte y. Wallace, 89 III. App. 517. 2. Defendant's General Reputation for Wealth. — Humphrey v. Brown, 89 Fed. Rep. 640 ; Geiger v. Payne, 102 Iowa 581 ; Herriman v. Layman, 118 Iowa 590; Tamke v. Vangsnes, 72 Minn. 236: Hahn v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512; Biruin v- Johnson, 87 Minn. 363. See also Vierling v. Binder, 113 Iowa 337. Contra, Johansen v. Modahl, (Neb. 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 532. Evidence of Particulars of Defendant's Property. — As denying the admissibility of such evi- dence, see Smith v. Compton, 67 N. J. L. 548, wherein it is held, however, that where the declaration alleges, as a ground of special dam- ages, the loss of a valuable right of dower in the defendant's property, evidence of the de- fendant's ownership of specific property may be given by the plaintiff. As sustaining the admissibility of such evi- dence, see Vierling v. Binder, 113 Iowa 337; Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61. Where the exchange of property was a part of the consideration of marriage, the two ques- tions were held to be so interwoven as to render competent testimony as to the value of the property. Shields v. Lewis, (Ky. 1899) 49 S. W. Rep. 803. Defendant's Interest in His Father's Estate is a proper matter of inquiry. Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61. Necessity of Evidence. — In Pyle v. Piercy, 122 Cal. 383, the court was of the opinion that in the absence of evidence thereof, the defend- ant's financial ability should not be considered by the jury. 8, Smith v. Compton, 67 N. J. L. 548. Where it was alleged that the defendant was worth over ten thousand dollars, and his busi- ness relations were proved, it was competent for the defendant to show his actual financial condition. Casey v. Gill, 154 Mo. 181. 4. Social Position of Defendant. — Tamke v. Vangsnes, 72 Minn. 236 ; Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. Where the evidence warrants it, the jury may take into consideration the plaintiff's pecuniary loss, her loss of opportunities during her en- gagement, the disappointment of her reasonable expectation of marital and social advantages re- sulting from the intended marriage, and the marring of her prospects in life. Hahn v. Bet- tingen, 81 Minn. 91. 6. Length of Engagement. — Olmstead v. Hoy, 112 Iowa 349. 6. Evidence of Inducement to Change Church Relations. — As showing the woman's affection and her wounded feelings, testimony that after the marriage contract the defendant induced the plaintiff to change her church relations, and transfer her membership to the church of which he was a member, is admissible for con- sideration in the computation of damages. Mac- Elree v. Wolfersberger, 59 Kan. 105. 8. Liebrandt v. Sorg, 133 Cal. 571 ; Parker v. Forehand, 99 Ga. 743 ; La Porte v. Wallace, 89 III. App. 517; Rime v. Rater, 108 Iowa 61 ; Stewart v. Anderson, 1:1 Iowa 329; MacElree v. Wolfersberger, 59 Kan.- 105; Grubbs?, Penqe, 720 Vol. IV. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. 898-900 898. See notes 3, 4. 2. Circumstances in Aggravation — Seduction. — See note 6. 899. Cruel and Insulting Conduct of Defendant. — See note 2. Alleging Plaintiff's Unchaste Conduct. — See note 3. Bad Faith. — See note 4. Bad Motives — Fraud. — See note 6. 900. 3. Circumstances in Mitigation — Question of Motive. — See note 3. Unchastity. — See notes 5, 6. Participation of Defendant. — See note 9. (Ky. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 78s; Hahn v. Bet- tingen, 81 Minn. 91 ; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547; Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302; Broyhill v. Norton, 175 Mo. 190; Brown v. Odill, 104 Tenn. 250, 78 Am. St. Rep. 914. Evidence that the plaintiff told others about her contemplated marriage, though not admis- sible to prove the contract, may be admitted to show humiliation after the contract has been prima facie shown. Liebrandt v. Sorg, 133 Cal. 571- 898. 3. Expense of Preparations. — Such ex- penses are an element of damage, if alleged and proven. Where there is no evidence tending to show the amount expended, it is error to submit the matter to the jury. Olmstead -v. Hoy, 112 Iowa 349. 4. Understanding Concerning Building Home. — In Jacoby v. Stark, 205 111. 34, it was held that it was proper to submit to the jury the consideration of the money value or worldly advantage of a marriage which would have given the plaintiff a permanent home, where there was evidence of an understanding con- cerning the building of a home. Loss of Opportunity to Marry Jilted Lover. — Where the plaintiff broke an existing engage- ment with another man, at the solicitation of the defendant, and promised to marry him, the loss of the opportunity to marry her jilted lover cannot be considered in assessing dam- ages for a breach of the subsequent engage- ment. Hahn v. Bettingen, 81 Minn. 91 ; Tram- mell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302. 6. Seduction. — Mainz v. Lederer, 21 R. I. 370, explaining and limiting Perkins v. Hersey, 1 R. I. 493, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 898 ; Poehlmann v. Kertz, 204 111. 418, affirming 105 111. App. 249 ; Geiger v. Payne, 102 Iowa 581 ; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547; Spellings v. Parks, 104 Tenn. 331; Kauf- man v. Fye, 99 Tenn. 145. Seduction Outside of State or Territory. — Se- duction may be considered even if accomplished outside of the jurisdiction of the state or terri- tory. Davis v. Pryor, 3 Indian Ter. 396, judg- ment reversed (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. Rep. 274. Must Be Pleaded to Be Available. — Herriman v. Layman, 118 Iowa 590. 899. 2. Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302; Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619; Roberts v. Druillard, 123 Mich. 286, holding that full damages for slan- der cannot be awarded. 3. Allegation of Plaintiff's Bad Character. — Fleetford v. Barnett, 11 Colo. App. 77; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547 ; Broyhill v, Norton, I Supp. E. of L. — 46 175 Mo. 190; Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 174. 4. Bad Faith. — Contra, Kaufman v. Fye, 99 Tenn. 145. 6. Jacoby v. Stark, 205 111. 34, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 899 ; Tamke v. Vangsne's, 72 Minn. 236 ; Duvall v. Fuhrman, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 174 ; Kaufman v. Fye, 99 Tenn. 143. But see Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 81 Am. St. Rep. 302, wherein the court held that where the defendant enters into the transaction maliciously and. not in good faith, this may aggravate the compensatory damages, but will not entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages. Evidence of Bad Faith. — Where the court allowed the plaintiff to put in evidence the value of specific tracts of land owned by the defend- ant, and conveyed by him to his sisters shortly before the date set for the marriage, it was held that this evidence was admissible to show the bad faith on the part of the defendant, and that he intended to break the contract, and to contradict the truthfulness of his specification of defense that his failure to comply with his engagement was in consequence of his physical condition. Smith v. Compton, 67 N. J. L. 548. 900. 3. The Plaintiff's Beputation for Truth and Veracity is not competent in mitigation of special damages claimed to result from wounded feelings, injured reputation, etc. Barber, v. Geer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 176, distinguishing Col- lins v. Clark, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 341. Bemote Previous Engagements of the Plaintiff, not breached by fault of the plaintiff, are not admissible on the question of damages. Edge • v. Griffin, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 148 5. Markham v. Herrick, 82 Mo. App. 327. Must Be Pleaded to Be Available. — Herriman ■u. Layman, 118 Iowa 590. Evidence of the Plaintiff's Mother's Misconduct, with which the plaintiff had no connection, is inadmissible as a bar to the action or to miti- gate damages. Lewis v. Tapman, go Md. 294. Evidence that the mother of the plaintiff was a prostitute and the mother of illegitimate chil- dren is inadmissible to mitigate the damages. The general reputation and standing of the family may be shown by the plaintiff to en- hance, and by the defendant to diminish, dam- ages, but the reputation of a particular member of the family other than the plaintiff cannot be inquired into. Spellings v. Parks, 104 Tenn. 35'- 6. Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. .of Law (2d ed.) 900; La Porte v. Wallace, 89 111. App. 517. 9. Fleetford v. Barnett, u Colo. App. 77. 721 900-904 BREA CH OF PROMISE — BREA CH OF PEA CE. Vol. IV. 900. Incurable Disease. — See note 12. Hi Health of Plaintiff. — See note 13. 901. Offer to Marry After Suit Brought. — See note IO. 000. 12. In order to mitigate the damages because of inability to perform the contract by reason of ill health, such should be pleaded. Edge v. Griffin, (Tea. Civ. App. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 148. 13. Must Be Pleaded to Be Available. — Vierling V. Binder, 113 Iowa 337. Evidence of Insanity in the Plaintiff's Family is not admissible where it appears that the de- fendant knew of the insanity at the time of the promise. Lohner v. Coldwell, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 444- 901. 10. McCarty v. Heryford, 125 Fed. Rep. 46, wherein the rule stated in the text is supported. BREACH OF THE PEACE. 902. I. Definition. — See note 1. Actual or Threatened Violence. — See note 2. 903. II. Term Not Specific, but Generic. — See note 1. III. Acts Tending to Breach of the Peace. — See notes 2, 3. 904. See note 2. 008. 1. Definition.— Stancliff v. U. S., (In- dian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 882, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 902 ; Scougale v. Sweet, 124 Mich. 311. In People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423, the court said : " A breach of the peace is an offense well known to the common law. It is a dis- turbance of public order by an act of violence, or by any act likely to produce violence, or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community." 2. Actual or Threatened Violence. — Com. v. Krubeck, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 35, citing 4 Am, and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 902. 003. 1. Scougale v. Sweet, 124 Mich. 311, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 903. In this case it was held that games of baseball upon Sunday are prohibited by section 5912, Comp. Laws Mich. 1897, and are breaches of the peace under section 11334. And see the .title Sundays and Holidays. Discharging Firearms. — See Stancliff v. U. S., (Indian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 882. A conviction for disturbing the peace will lie where the evidence showed that the defendant with some drinking companions, traveling along a road at night, fired several shots into a house and hit one of the occupants. Spiars v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 437. 2. People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423. 8, A Publication in a Newspaper which insti- gates revolution and murder; which suggests the persons to be murdered, through the posi- tions occupied and the duties performed by them; which advises all to discharge their duty to the human race by murdering those who en- force the law; which denounces those who spare the ministers of public justice^ as guilty of a crime against humanity ; and which names poison and dynamite as the agencies to be used to murder and destroy, necessarily endangers the public peace ; and the publisher may be con- victed under New York Penal Code, § 675, pro- viding that " a person who wilfully and wrong- fully commits any aet * * * which seriously disturbs or endangers the public peace, * * * for which no other punishment is expressly prescribed hy this Code, is guilty of a misde- meanor." People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423- Street Meeting.— Under the above-quoted sec- tion of the New York Penal Code, it was held that a conviction might be had of representa- tives of a socialistic party addressing a political meeting from boxes in the public street, and thereby collecting a disorderly crowd which the police could not disperse. People v. Wallace 85 N. Y. App. Div. 170. 904. 2. Statutes Directed Against Disturb' ances of the Peace. — State v. Maggard, 80 Mo. App. 286. In Alabama. — -In a prosecution for going sufficiently near the dwelling house of another person and using abusive and insulting language in the presence or hearing of the family of the occupant thereof, it is not necessary,. to author- ize a conviction, that the entire family should be present or within hearing when the language was used ; but if it was used in the presence or hearing of two or more members of the family, there is a violation of the statute. Bones v. State, 117 Ala. 146. Evidence that the defendant was in his own room quarreling with his wife, not talking very loudly nor cursing, but that the talking disturbed a sick man in the same house, will not warrant a conviction under an ordinance providing that " any person who disturbs the peace of others by violent, offensive, or boisterous conduct or carriage, or by loud or unusual noises, or by profane, obscene, or offensive language, cal- culated to provoke a breach of the peace, or being drunk or in a state of intoxication in a public place, or in a private place to the an- noyance of others, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct." Ellis v. Pratt City, 113 Ala. 541. In Georgia. — -The use in the presence of a man, of an obscene word in an ordinary tone, without anger, and under circumstance* 722 Vol. IV. BREACH OF THE PEACE. 904 not calculated to offend the hearer or cause a breach of the peace, does not constitute a viola- tion of a municipal ordinance prohibiting dis- orderly conduct " calculated to disturb the peace of the citizen." Daniel .v. Athens, no Ga. 289. The Georgia Penal Code, § 396, prohibits " indecent or disorderly conduct in the presence of females on passenger cars, street cars, or other places of like character." In construing this statute, the court said : " We think the true construction of the statute is that, if the disorderly or indecent conduct takes place on a street car on which females are riding, it is in their presence, although their backs may be turned to the offenders. That being drunk, cursing, and hugging and kissing, in an offen- sive manner, as was here shown to be the case, by a man and a woman on a street car, is dis- orderly conduct, we think too clear to require any discussion." Sailors v. State, 108 Ga. 35, 75 Am. St. Rep. 17. Question for Jury. — In a prosecution for using opprobrious words tending to cause a breach of the peace, it is for the jury to say whether there was a provocation, and if so whether it was sufficient to justify the accused in using the language attributed to him. Wil- liams v. State, 105 Ga. 608; Echols v. State, no Ga. 257. Indian Territory, — It is not necessary in a prosecution for a breach of the peace that •' any person should testify that he was disturbed by the conduct of the defendant, in order to sus- tain the charge. The jury are to consider all the facts and circumstances in the case, and then arrive at a conclusion as to whether the acts of the defendant disturbed the inhabitants of a community or not. The gravamen of the offense is the indulgence of improper conduct, and the attracting of the attention of any part of the people of a community." Stancliff v. U. S., (Indian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 882. Time Not an Element. — In Stancliff v. U. S., (Indian Ter. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 882, the court said : " But by express provision of statute and the uniform opinions of the courts, time is not a necessary element of the crime." In Kansas. — " One who applies vile epithets to another in a public street in the presence of bystanders, with the intention of annoying and disturbing such person, commits a breach of the peace." State v. Appleton, (Kan. 1904) 78 Pac. Rep. 445. The Office of a Hotel Is a Public Place within an ordinance prohibiting wrangling, etc., in a public place. Howard v. Stroud, 63 Kan. 883, 65 Pac. Rep. 249. Missouri Statute. — The Conversation Must Be Loud and offensive or indecent to constitute an offense under this statute. An instruction which fails to charge that the conversation was loud does not define the offense. State v. Maggard, 80 Mo. App. 286. What Constitutes Family. — State v. Mag- gard, 80 Mo. App. 286. In New Jersey. — • Using loud language is no offense under section 3 of the Disorderly Act; the offense consists in the use of " loud and offensive or indecent language." Mullen v. State, 67 N. J. L. 451. New York — Disorderly Conduct. — " Dis- orderly conduct in the abstract does not consti- tute any crime known to the law ; it is only when it ' tends to a breach of the peace,' under the circumstances detailed in section 1458 of the Consolidation Act, that it constitutes a minor offense cognizable by the police magis- trates of the city of New York ; and when it in fact threatens to disturb the peace it is a misdemeanor, as well under section 675 of the Penal Code as at common law, and not within the jurisdiction of the police magistrates, but of the Court of Special Sessions (Laws of 1895, c. 601, § 14; Laws of 1901, c. 466, § 1409)." People v. Davis, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 448, affirmed 176 N. Y. 465. In Texas. — A conviction for breach of the peace in using language calculated to bring on a difficulty is warranted where the evidence shows that the defendant called the plaintiff a " God damn liar." Johnson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 1097. The statute prohibiting the use of profane language near a private house, calculated to dis- turb the inhabitants thereof, does not require that the acts complained of be wilfully done. Watson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 340. In a prosecution for cursing under circum- stances calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, an instruction that it is sufficient that the cursing be in the presence or hearing of the injured party is proper when such party ad- mitted he heard the cursing. Christmas v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 175; Walkins 0. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 507. Defenses. — In a prosecution for cursing under circumstances calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, the fact that the prosecutor cursed the defendant first is no defense, but may go in mitigation of penalty. Christmas v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 175; Watkins v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 44 S. W. Rep. 507. 723 BRIBERY. By X. P. Huddy. 907. I. Definition and Requisites of Offense. — See note i. 907. 1. Definition.— People v. Van De Carr, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 386, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 908 [907] ; State v. Davis, 2 Penn. (Del.) 139 ; State v. Miles, 89 Me. 142; State v. Meysenburg, 171 Mo. 1; Com. v. Brown, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 470. See also State v. Smith, 72 Vt.*366. TJnder State Statutes — California. — A party who offers to accept a bribe is guilty under Penal Code Cal., § 57, even though there is no offer to bribe him. People v. Hurley, 126 Cal. 35'- , , , . At an Early Day in England, when the duties of judicial officers, especially of the petty sort, entered more closely into the everyday life of the people than in later years, the motive for bribery was largely confined to the corruption of such officers, and bribery was perhaps largely confined to such officials. So the crime came to he defined by some of the old writers as " where any man in judicial place takes any fee or pension, robe or livery, gift, reward, or brocage, of any person that hath to do before him in any way, for doing his office, or by color of his office, but of the King only, unless it be meat and drink, and that of small value." State v. Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75. Where the Offense Is Not Defined by Statute reference will be had to the common law, not only for the definition of the crime, but also for the punishment, under a general provision of the Delaware statute. State v. Davis, 2 Penn. (Del.) 139. Bribery Is an Offense Against Public Justice. — The essence of it is the prostitution of a public trust, the betrayal of public interest, and the debauchment of public conscience. State v. Duncan, 153 Ind. 318. • Infamous Crime. — • In the Illinois constitutions of 1848 and 1870, bribery of all kinds was classed with perjury, as rendering the offender infamous. Christie v. People, 206 111. 337. It Is Immaterial Whether the Agreement Is Carried Out by the parties. The offense is com- plete upon the acceptance of the promise of a gift in pursuance of a corrupt agreement to vote in favor of a measure pending before a municipal assembly. State v. Lehman, 182 Mo. 424. See also State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130. Must Be Legal Duty. — There is no rule so uniformly adhered to by the courts, both state and federal, as the one " that there can be no bribery of any official to do a particular act, unless the law requires or imposes upon him the duty of acting." It is bottomed upon the sound and logical principle that he cannot be influenced to do something that he has no power or authority to do. State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272. Ignorance of Duty. — That the defendant did not, at the time .he received the money, know of the existence of the statutory duty would be no defense under an indictment for failure to do the thing required ; but where the charge is receiving money for an agreement to omit to perform that duty, evidence by the defendant of his ignorance of the statute is material to sustain his claim that he never made an agree- ment not to perform the duty imposed by the statute. Where an instruction was asked for by the defendant, which covered this theory, and was refused, it was held that the ruling was not, under the facts, erroneous, because, while the defendant may not have known of the specific statute, he was conclusively pre- sumed to know that gambling was a crime, and the record showed that he did know it, and, in general, that his official duty was to execute the laws against gambling. His transaction with gamblers was conclusive that he knew that gambling was unlawful, and that the gamblers would not give him money to prevent interference with their practices unless it was within his power, and a part of his duty, to do the things which the statute declared that he should do. Newman v. People, 23 Colo. 300. A Tender of a Bribe is not necessary under a statute prohibiting the offering to give any gift with the intent to bribe a juror. A proposal and declaration of a willingness to give the bribe is prohibited. State v. Miller, 182 Mo. 370 ; State v. Woodward, 182 Mo. 391. See also State v. Iden, 5 Ohio Dec. 627. Defendant Need Not Expressly Agree to Act. — It is sufficient if there was a promise of money which induced the defendant to make an ap- pointment, although he did not actually agree to do so, and that in pursuance of the promise or offer he afterwards accepted the money which had been offered. Com. v. Dietrich, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 515. See also Com. v. Donovan, 170 Mass. 228. Act of Two Parties Essential. — To constitute bribery, the act of at least two persons is es- sential, that of him who gives and him who receives. The minds of the two must concur. It is immaterial, however, whether the giver makes the first advances or gives the money to get some personal advantage to himself. Newman v. People, 23 Colo. 300. See also State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28. In Missouri the statute has effected such a change in the common-law offense of bribery as to divide the crime into two divisions, so that bribery consists in giving anything of value in corrupt payment for an official act, etc. ; while the other division consists in the acceptance or receipt of any bribe. There are two distinct offenses plainly marked out, one for giving, the other for receiving, a bribe; but both are termed bribery. State v. Meysen- burg, 171 Mo. i, per Sherwood, J, 7*4 Vol. IV. BRIBERY. 907 908 907. Intent. — See note 2. 9©8. See note i. The Aet Induced. — See notes 2, 3, 5. Bribery of a Juror or an offer to bribe a juror is a crime by itself under section 71 of the New York Penal Code. The acceptance of a bribe by a juror is a separate offense. People v. Winant, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 36'- Suapeniion of Trial to Investigate Charges of Bribery. — Where an attempt to bribe one of the state's witnesses was made during a crim- inal trial and the fact was called to the court's attention, it was held that a temporary suspen- sion of the trial for the purpose of investigat- ing the matter did not constitute error. People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537. A Magistrate Has Jurisdiction in New York to inquire into a violation of section 72 of the New York Penal Code, which prohibits an officer from receiving a bribe, and he may thereafter, upon proper proof, hold a person to answer for the crime. People v. Van De Carr, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 386. 907. 2. See Higgins v. State, 157 Ind. 57; People v. Gorsline, 132 Mich. 549; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272 ; State v. Smith, 72 Vt. 366. 908. 1. Epps v. Smith, 121 N. Car. 157. 2. State v. Ray, 153 Ind. 334; State v. Dun- can, 153 Ind. 318. Officers and Other Persons Designated by Statute. — Where the party is in no manner an officer within the meaning of the statute, the offense is not committed. Messer v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 635. See also U. S. v. Dietrich, 126 Fed. Rep. 676. An Accountant employed by a board of re- vision of a city, constituted of the mayor, president of the council, and city solicitor, is an employee of an officer within the meaning of section 6900 of Rev. Stat. Ohio, 1892, and may be punished, by virtue of said section, for accepting a bribe given for the purpose of in- fluencing him with respect to his duty as such accountant. Barker v. State, 69 Ohio St. 68. 3. Act in Excess of Power. — In State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272, it was held that the offense of at- tempted bribery under the Missouri statute was not committed where the act induced was not something the officer could by law do. The Law Must Impose a Duty on the Officer and authorize him to act in the particular mat- ter in order for the offense of bribery to be committed. U. S. v. Boyer, 85 Fed. Rep. 426; Gunning v. People, 189 111. 165, 82 Am. St. Rep. 433. reversing 86 111. App. 676 ; Moore v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 159; Ex p. Richards, 44 Tex. Crim. 561. Tinder Rev. Stat. IT. S., § 5451, the prosecution must prove: (a) an offer to bribe; (b) that such corrupt offer was made to an officer of the United States, or a person at the time acting for or on behalf of the United States in an official function ; (c) that the offer was made to in- fluence the officer or person in the doing of some act or performance of some duty in his official capacity. Where the accused offered to bribe an interpreter of Chinese, appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, to secure for him a translation favorable to the accused of certain Chinese letters and documents which he expected would be offered in evidence at a hearing to take place before a United States commissioner of a criminal charge then pend- ing, and which were supposed to contain ma- terial evidence, no charge of bribery under this section can be predicated, because it is not a matter within the scope of the interpreter's du- ties under the appointment of the Secretary of the Treasury, nor could he act as an interpreter at the hearing of the case without the authority and approval of the commissioner presiding, and such authority and approval had not been given at the time the offer of a bribe was made. An offer made to a person in contemplation of a mere probability that he may be called to perform official functions, and intended to influ- ence his conduct in performance of such func- tions if he shall be so called, does not violate this section. In re Yee Gee, (1897) 83 Fed. Rep. 145- The Term " Official Junction," as used in Rev. Stat. U. S., § 5451, may include a function belonging to an officer held by his superior, which function has been committed to the sub- ordinate for the purpose of being executed. A secret service operative, employed by the Secre- tary of the Treasury to detect certain crimes, is a person acting in an ofncial function, and any one bribing such a person is guilty of an offense under this section. U. S. v. Ingham, 97 Fed. Rep. 935. Official Action and Duty. — The asking for a bribe by a member of the city council, with the understanding or agreement that he would cor- ruptly use it to bribe or influence the votes or official action of his colleagues, constitutes a crime under Gen. Stat. Minn. 1894, § 6349. The influence of the member of a public body over the official action of his colleagues is it- self a part of his own official action and duty. State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150. ' Unauthorized Action by City. — Even though a city has no authority to take a certain course, the bribery of an officer before whom the mat- ter might lawfully come is unlawful. People v. McGarry, (Mich. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 147; People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537; People v. Mol, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 913; People v. Ellen, (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 1008; State v. Lehman, 182 Mo. 424. 5. Bribe to Procure Release from Illegal Arrest. — Compare Moore v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 159, distinguishing Florez v. State, 1 1 1 Tex. App. 102; Moseley v. State, 25 Tex. App. 515, and holding that in order to bribe the officer he must be in the discharge of a legal and official duty, and the custody of the prisoner must have been legal. See also Ex p. Richards, 44 Tex. Crim. 561. Evidence — Conspiracy. — ■ In People v. Gors- line, 132 Mich. 549, it was held that testimony tending to show a conspiracy which character- ized and made clear the motive and purpose of the defendant in the payment of the money was admissible. Communications and Actions by Others Evidence concerning communications and ac- tions by and between other persons interested ia 725 90S BRIBERY. Vol. IV. 908. Value of Thing Offered as Bribe. — See note 6. procuring a contract from a city council was held to be admissible on the trial of a city attorney for accepting a bribe to influence the city council in reference to the contract. It was proper to submit to the jury the question whether all of the parties and the defendant were co-conspirators. People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537. Conversations. — Where an indictment charged the defendant with asking one Richards for a bribe with the understanding and agree- ment that his vote and official action should be thereby influenced in favor of the acceptance of a bid which the firm of Haverson, Richards & Co. had submitted to the city council for the construction of a reservoir by the city, it was held that, upon the facts, a conversation on the same subject which the defendant had, on the day previous, with Haverson, was admissible for the purpose of illustrating and explaining the conversation on the next day between the defendant and Richards, when the crime charged is alleged to have been committed, the latter being but a continuation of the conversa- tion with Haverson, and the two being part of the same transaction. State v. Durnam, 73. Minn. 150. Execution of Agreement. — Where on the trial of a defendant indicted for accepting a bribe upon the agreement or understanding that he would not as a police officer arrest or prose- cute the confidence men from whom he received the bribe, but would permit them to operate their business and would influence the police force so to do, evidence tending to show that the defend- ant carried into effect the agreement on his part was not erroneously admitted. His acts and declarations in the premises, and those of the persons from whom the bribe was received, of which he had knowledge, were also admis- sible; but it was error to receive evidence of the acts and declarations of such persons and of members of the police force with whom it was not shown that the defendant was con- nected. State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130. Negotiations Culminating in Bribery May Be Shown. — State v. Smith, 72 Vt. 366. Evidence of Previous Offenses. — Evidence that a member of a legislative body previously solicited a bribe with reference to. another, measure may be admissible to prove purpose, intent, notice, and to corroborate other testi- mony. Higgins v. State, 157 Ind. 57; State -v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183. See also State v. Schnett- ler, 181 Mo.. 173. Corpus Delicti. — All testimony going to show that the bribe was received is admissible as proof of (he corpus delicti. People v. McGarry, (Mich. T904) 99 N. W. Rep. 147. Proceedings Before City Council. — In State v. Durnam, 73 Minn, 150, it was held that the proceedings before the city council, of which the defendant was a member, were admissible for the purpose of showing that the matter upon which the bribe was alleged to have been asked for was pending before that body, and in what way or manner it was pending. Offer to Receive Bribe from Third Party. — In People v. Hurley, 126 Cal. 351, it was held that where there was no conneotion between the 726 two offers, evidence that the defendant offered to receive a bribe from a person other than the one charged in the prosecution was inadmis- sible. Agency. — A party was indicted for having, while acting as superintendent of the police de- partment of the city of Minneapolis, received a bribe from one Mills, under an agreement to protect her in an unlawful occupation in the city. The evidence showed that Mills paid the money to one Cohen, who, the state claimed, was acting for the defendant in receiving the money. It was held, taking the evidence al- together, that it was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that Cohen was acting for and in behalf of the defendant, and that the pay- ment to him was equivalent to a payment to the defendant personally. State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183. Variance. — Where a variance alleged was that the charge was that the defendant cor- ruptly agreed to omit to seize and take before a judicial officer gambling devices, and the proof showed nothing but a vague understand- ing between the defendant and the gamblers from whom the money was received that he, the defendant, was not to close the gambling houses, it was held that the distinction which was , endeavored to be made was too unsub- stantial and refined for courts to recognize in the administration of the criminal law. New- man v. People, 23 Colo. 300. Failure of Proof. — An indictment charged that on the rsth day of December, 1901, the defendant (the mayor of the city) did feloni- ously receive from (naming certain parties, and others unknown, who were conducting houses of ill repute) the sum of six hundred dollars, upon the agreement and with the understand- ing that such persons would be protected from criminal prosecution for the. month at Decem- ber, 1901. The undisputed' evidence was that- detectives, and police officers accepted money from the women specified in the' indictment, arid- others, in amounts ranging from, fifteen to twenty-five dollars, in consideration of. which each person making payment was promised police- protection ; that the detectives and police officers who received the money were the agents of the defendant, and not of those' making payments ; that there was no joint agreement or under- standing between those paying the money ; and that the six hundred dollars which was paid over to the defendant by his: agent in one sum, after it was paid to Him by the' women 1 indi^ vidually, was not a general fund; contributed with the understanding that those participating should be protected.- The court; held rha*. there was a failure of proofi to sustain the offense charged. State v. Ames, 91 Minn. 365. 90S'. 6. Political or Personal Advantage Is Suffi- cient. — Peoplem Vair De Carr, 87 N: Y. App. Div. 386. Void Notes. — The fact that the notes which the defendant received were void because- of the corrupt agreement under' which they were' given constitutes 1 no defense. People v. Willisv (Siipm: Ct. Spec.- T.)< 24- Mise; ('N. Y-.)r 540.) See also- Comj v. Dcmovarr, i7or Mass. 228,. hold' ing that the fact tha* notes; -never given byr the Vol. IV. BRIBERY, 909-911 909. Accomplices — Corroboration. — See note 2. II. Nature of the Offense — At Common Law. — See notes 3, 4. 910. By Statute. — See note I, III. The Various Classes of Bribery — 1. Bribery of Judicial, Legis- lative, or Executive Officers, — See notes 2, 3. 911. 2. Bribery at Elections. — See note 2. defendant with the belief that they were worth- less does not constitute a valid defense. But see TJ. S. v. Driggs, 125 Fed. Rep. 520, wherein it was held that an illegal nonnegotiable note did not constitute " property " or a " valuable consideration " within the meaning of a statute. Money Paid as Bribe Cannot Be Recovered.— Patterson v. Hamilton, (Ky. 189/) 42 S. W. Rep. 88. 909. 8. See People v. Bissert, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 118, affirmed 172 N. Y. 643, per Mc- Laughlin, J. And see State v. Meysenburg, 171 Mo. 1, holding that the court should have charged that the accomplice's testimony should be received with caution. Slight Corroborative Evidence May Be Sufficient. ■ — People v. Winant, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 361. One Who Gives or Offers a Bribe Is Not an Ac- complice of the one who asks for it. Asking for a bribe and offering or giving a bribe are separate and distinct offenses. State -u. Dur- nam, 73 Minn. 150. 3. Misdemeanor at Common Law. — State v. Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75. See also Com. v. Brown, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 470. Bribery was an indictable offense at common law, and, although in the early days it was lim- ited to judicial officers and those engaged in the administration of justice, it was later ex- tended to all public officers. It was variously defined as taking or offering an " undue re- ward " or a " reward " to influence official ac- tion. People v. Van De Carr, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 386. 4. Aggravated Bribery at Common Law. — " While it was a felony at common law to bribe a judicial officer, it does not appear clear whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor to bribe other officers." State v. Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75- 910, 1, Bribery as Felony Within Statute of Limitations. — Rev. Stat. Mo. 1899, § 2419, provides : " No person shall be tried, prose- cuted or punished for any felony, other than as specified in the next preceding section, un- less an indictment for such offense be found within three years after the commission of the offense." The " preceding section " applies only to offenses punishable by death or imprison- ment for life. The offense of bribery falls within section 2419, and the three-year bar applies. State v. Snyder, 182 Mo. 462. 2, Justice of Peace, — In Morawietz v. State, (Tex. Crim. *904) 80 S. W. Rep. 997, it was held that a justice of the peace was guilty of bribery where, in consideration of money, he refrained from instituting proceedings against a party known by him to be unlawfully carry- ing a pistol. It was also held that a deputy sheriff, who was with the justice of the peace when information was obtained of carrying the pistol, was guilty of taking a bribe where the justice of the peace divided the money with him ; and it was further held that the deputy sheriff, the party who carried the pistol, and his friend who was with him during the settle- ment and who paid part thereof were accom- plices. Attorney — Michigan Statute. — A statute punishing the receiving of bribes by executive or judicial officers includes a city attorney. People v. Salsbury, 134 Mich. 537. A Commonwealth's Attorney in Kentucky may be prosecuted for bribery under section 1366? Ky. Stat., for taking a bribe to dismiss an in- dictment, or he may be prosecuted for the com- mon-law offense of malfeasance in office ; how- ever, where every fact stated in the indictment is included in the statutory offense, the punish- ment is limited to the mode prescribed by statute. Com. v. Rowe, 112 Ky. 482. 3, A Common-law bribery was not confined to judicial officers, but it was an offense to bribe or attempt to bribe a legislative officer. Com. v. Brown, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 470 ; State f, Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75, holding that it is an offense for a legislative officer to solicit a bribe. See also People v. Hammond, 132 Mich. 422, holding that a solicitation is an offense even where the other party refuses to act. But see State v. Bowles, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 731, where it is said concerning the deci- sion in the preceding case, " The inference from this decision is that soliciting a bribe would not be punishable in Michigan except for the statute recognizing common-law offenses." In Ohio the statute makes it a crime for a member of the legislature to solicit from any person any valuable or beneficial thing to in- fluence him with respect to his official duty, or to influence his action, vote, opinion, or judg- ment in any matter pending or that might legally come before him. The state in order to convict under this law is not obliged to prove that even a cent of money was paid. The fact that the defendant did not want the money for his own use, or intend to use it for his own purposes, is of no importance. It is not necessary to prove that the solicitation for the money was the only consideration that was to influence the defendant. To ask, to induce, other members to vote for the passage of a bill, and to collect facts and reasons and pre- sent them to other members for the purpose of inducing them to vote for or against the bill, would constitute official action or official duty. State v. Geyer, 5 Ohio Dec. 646, 3 Ohio N. P. 242. A Delegate-elect to a Political Convention, even though the convention is not organized, is a member of the convention within the pur- view of Penal Code California, § 57, which pre- scribes punishment against a member of such a convention who receives or offers to receive a bribe. Ppople v. Hurley. 126 Cal. 351. 911. 2. At Common Law. — State v. Towns, 727 012-914 BRIBERY. Vol. IV. 91 «. See notes i, 2. 913. See note 1. Disqualification to Hold Office. — See note 3. 914. 3. Bribery of Witnesses. — See note 1. 153 Mo. 91, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 911, 912. See also Doyle v. Kirby, 184 Mass. 409; Baum v. State, 157 Ind. 282. 912. 1. Bribery at Elections of Members of Parliament was an offense at common law in England, and so, probably, was bribery at mu- nicipal elections. At common law, as well as under some of the English statutes, there seems to be no difference in liability between the giver and the taker of a bribe. Doyle v. Kirby, 184 Mass. 409. 2. Distinction Between lawful Expenditures and Bribe Money. — There is a difference be- tween a contribution made by a candidate for office for his part of the necessary expenses of a political campaign or paying individuals to help him conduct his own personal canvas, provided the electioneering is honest and the service duly rendered, and the giving of money or any other thing of value to electors in order to be elected. Epps v. Smith, 121 N. Car. 157. Congress May Punish Bribery at Federal Elec- tions. — See James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127. Constitutionality of Federal Statute, — - Sec- tion 5507 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which prohibited individuals from brib- ing others from exercising the right of suffrage guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment, was held to be unconstitutional and not an appro- priate exercise of the power conferred by that amendment. It was also held that the court would not restrict the scope of the statute, which included all elections, state and federal. James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127. See also Karem v. U. S., (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 250. Conviction Warranted. — A prosecution was had for corruptly influencing a voter, in Wash- ington, under Ball. Code, § 7421, which prohibits an attempt to influence any person, directly or indirectly, in giving or refusing to give his vote. The conviction of a defendant was held to be warranted where the evidence showed that the defendant, a judge of the election, gave a slip of paper to a voter at the latter's request, which indicated that the voter was " all right," upon the surrender of which to a party outside money was given to the voter ; and it further appeared that the defendant was with the voter in the voting booth at the time the latter marked his ballot, at the voter's request for in- structions in regard thereto, but the defendant did not ask the voter to vote any particular ticket, merely telling him that an " X " at the top of the national ticket voted the whole ticket, and showing him how to mark the bal- lot. State v. Milby, 26 Wash. 661. The Gist of the Offense under the Indiana stat- ute is in the giving or offering of an article of value " to influence " the vote of an elector. State v. Downs, 148 Ind. 324. In Massachusetts the legislature has not left the common law in force as to any form of bribery at elections. No punishment is pro- vided for the voter. Doyle v. Kirby, 184 Mass. 409. In North Carolina It Is the Doing of the Par- ticular Act, the giving of money to electors in order to be elected, that gives the cause of ac- tion, and the intent with which the act is done is not material except that the purpose must be to procure the election of the defendant. Epps v. Smith, 121 N. Car. 161. In Pennsylvania, under the Act of June 8, 1881, P. L. 70, an indictment cannot be main- tained which alleges that at a nominating or delegate election commonly known as a primary election, the defendant offered bribes to differ- ent electors to vote for him for the office of county chairman. The purpose of the act was to prevent bribery in the nomination of candi- dates to be voted for at a subsequent election, and does not apply to an election of officers of a party organization by direct vote of the qualified electors of the party. Under section 6 of the Act of June 8, 1881, an indictment may be maintained which charges that the de- fendant offered money to a member of the elec- tion board at a primary election to influence him to have the vote of the ward cast and counted in favor of a certain person for the office of county chairman. Com. v. Gouger, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 217. 913. 1. Eeception of Bribe by Voter. — Con- tra, Doyle v. Kirby, 184 Mass. 409. (In Massa- chusetts the common law is superseded.) Disfranchisement as Punishment. — The Illi- nois statute which provides for the disfran- chisement of one who solicits a bribe to pro- cure votes at an election does not violate sec- tion 1 of article 7 of the constitution, as the crime was considered to be infamous at the adoption of the constitution of 1870. Christie v. People, 206 111. 337. See also Baum v. Peo- ple, 157 Ind. 282. 3. Disqualification for Office. — See State v. Towns, 153 Mo. 91, holding that where a can- didate for the nomination to the office of county clerk promises the appointment of a deputy at a salary of one thousand five hundred dollars a year, if made to secure votes, violates the Cor- rupt Practice Act of Missouri and will author- ize an ouster from office. In Bradley v. Clark, 133 Cal. 196, it is held that a promise of official patronage may be a cause for a forfeiture of office, but the promisee commits no offense. 914. 1. Witness Need Not Have Been Sub- poenaed. — Com. v. Bailey, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 299. Minnesota Statute. — Where the accused bribed or offered to bribe a witness to absent himself from a trial to* which he had been duly subpoenaed, it was held that the accused could not be convicted under section 6385, Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, as that section applies only to cases where the witness was bribed, or attempted to be bribed, to give false testimony, or, under sections 6310 and 6386, for aiding and abetting the receiving of a bribe, and could only be con- 728 Vol. IV. BRIBERY— BRICK. 914-916 914. IV. Attempts to Bbibe. — See note 2. 915. See note 1. 916. BRICK. — See note 1. victed, under section 6383, of a misdemeanor of which a justice of the peace has jurisdiction. State v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28. Knowledge that Person Is Witness. — One of the essential elements of the offense of offer- ing to bribe a witness is that the accused should know that the person to whom the bribe was offered was in fact a witness. The necessary knowledge may, however, be implied from cir- cumstances. Com. v. Bailey, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 299. Contempt of Court. — In Fisher v. McDaniel, 9 Wyo. 457, 87 Am. St. Rep. 971, it was held that an attempt to bribe witnesses committed in the hallway of the court house or adjoining the building is a contempt committed in the presence of the court. 914. 2. At Common Law. — - People v. Ham- mond, 132 Mich. 422; State v. Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75. Offense of Bribery Embraces Attempt to Bribe. — Com. v. Bailey, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 299. Solicitation as Attempt to Receive Bribe, — The solicitation of a bribe does not constitute an attempt to accept or receive a bribe. State j/. Bowles, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 726. 915. 1. Missouri. — The statute makes it a felony to bribe a legislative officer ; conse- quently if the defendant solicited that he be bribed, he solicited the commission of a felony, and committed a common-law misdemeanor. State v. Sullivan, no Mo. App. 75. In this state every person who directly or in- directly offers to give any money to any public officer of the state or city thereof, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, judgment, or de- cision on any question which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, is guilty of an attempt to bribe. The elements of the offense, as denounced by the statute, are : First. There must be a public officer of the state or city thereof. Second. The offer must be made with intent to influence the vote, opin- ion, judgment, or decision of such police officer. Third. The vote, opinion, judgment, or decision must be in respect to some question which may by law be brought before the public officer in his official capacity. To constitute the offense, all the elements herein noted must be shown to exist. State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272. Solicitation of Bribe. — A legislator who in- vites a person to pay money for the purpose of engaging another to appear before a committee in support of or against a bill is guilty of soliciting a bribe. State v. Abbot, 5 Ohio Dec. 650. To Constitute the Crime of Asking for a Bribe by a public officer " with the understanding or agreement that his vote," etc., " shall be in- fluenced thereby" (Gen. Stat. Minn. 1894, § 6349) , it is not necessary that the party so- licited for the bribe shall consent to give it, or that -there shall be any meeting of minds or mutual understanding or agreement between him and the party asking for a bribe. It is sufficient if the latter is ready and willing to enter into a corrupt agreement or understanding that his vote, etc., shall be influenced by the bribe. State v. Durnam, 73 Minn. 150. In Kansas the solicitation of a bribe is not punishable as a crime. State v. Bowles, (Kan. 1905) 79 Pac. Rep. 726. 916. 1. City Ordinance. — In Peters v. Chi- cago, 192 111. 438, the court said: "We need not go to a lexicographer to ascertain the gen- erally accepted meaning of the word brick. Among builders and mechanics a brick is understood to be eight inches in length, four inches in width, and two inches in thickness, and where an ordinance simply describes the material out of which an improvement shall be made, as of brick, paving brick, or sewer brick, every one will understand that it means brick of the ordinary dimensions and of the best quality for that particular structure." 729 BRIDGES. By R. N. Chaffee. 919. I. Definition. — See note 4. 92©. II. Public and Private Bridges— 1. Public Bridges— a. Public Bridges a Part of Highway. — See notes 1, 2. b. What Constitutes a Public Bridge. — See note 4. 921. C. OWNERSHIP — Action for Injury to Bridges. — See note I. 2. Private Bridges — b. Liability of Public to Repair — Bridge Adopted by Public. — See note 3. Bridge Erected and Continued for Private Benefit. — See note 4. 922. Where Construction Rendered Necessary by Private Act. — See note I . III. Bridges Over Navigable Waters — 1. Power of Congress to Construct and Regulate — Power Exists although Navigation Partially Obstructed. — See note 4. 923. 2. Power of States. — See notes 3, 4. 919. 4. U. S. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 353, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 919; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Dodd, 115 Ky. 176; Shaw v. Saline Tp., 113 Mich. 342. Approaches. — Francis v. Franklin Tp., 179 Pa. St. 195. Stringers in a bridge are a part of the frame- work and not a part of the roadway. Bush v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 166 M. Y. 210. 920. 1. Public Bridge Part of Highway,— Sachs v. Sioux City, 109 Iowa 228, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 920; Cedar Rapids v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 108 Iowa 406; Leslie County v. Wooten, tis Ky. 850; Southern Illinois, etc., Bridge Co. v. Stone, 174 Mo. 1 ; Hall v. Oyster Bay, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 508 ; Spencer v. Chosen Freeholders, 66 N. J. L. 301 ; Mahnken v. Chosen Freeholders, 62 N. J. L. 404; Oliver v. Thompson's Run Bridge Co-., 197 Pa. St. 344. Bridge in City Street. — Sachs v. Sioux City, 109 Iowa 228. A bridge over a river connecting a city street is a street improvement, within the meaning of a city charter authorizing the issuance of bonds for street improvements. Berlin Iron-Bridge Co. v. San Antonio, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 408. Approaches Part of Highway. — Where a bridge is constructed for the purpose of joining the two parts of a highway which is crossed by a waterway, the approaches thereto are a part of that highway. Willets Mfg. Co. v. Chosen Freeholders, 62 N. J. L. 95. 2. Schroeder v. Multnomah County, (Oregon 1904) 76 Pac. Rep. 772. The Allotment of a Town-line Road does not include the bridge on that road. Union Drain- age Dist. v. Highway Com'rs., 87 111. App. 93, reversed 199 111. 80. 4. General Public Use Necessary. — Crawford v. Griffin, 113 Ga. 564, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 920 ; Spencer v. Chosen Freeholders, 66 N. J. L. 301. " A bridge which constitutes a portion of a public road is necessarily a public bridge." Tattnall County v. Newton, 112 Ga. 779. 921. 1. Town or County Has Right of Action. — Ft. Covington v. U. S., etc., R. Co., 156 N. Y. 702, affirmed 8 N. Y. App. Div. 223 ; Steam Canal Boat Tempest v. Lucas County, 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 137, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 263. 3. Public Repair of Private Bridges. — Tattnall County v. Newton, 112 Ga. 779, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 921 ; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Jennings, 98 Va. 70. 4. Bridge Erected or Continued for Private Benefit. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. u. Jennings, 98 Va. 70. 922. 1. Construction Required by Private Act. — Boise City v. Boise Rapid-Transit Co., 6 Idaho 779 ; Clay v. Hart, (County Ct.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) no; Conewango v. Shaw, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 48 N. Y. Supp. 1 ; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Jennings, 98 Va. 70. 4. Congress May Erect Bridges Over Navigable Waters. — Frost v. Washington County R. Co., 96 Me. 76. 923. 3. State Authority to Authorize Bridges Over Navigable Waters. — Adams v. Ulmer, 91 Me. 47; Dietrich v. Schremms, 117 Mich. 298, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 923 ; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Wiygul, 82 Miss. 223, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 923 ; People v. Jessup, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 524, reversed 160 N. Y. 249; Car- valho v. Brooklyn, etc., Turnpike Co., (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 76 N. Y. Supp. 859. Delegation of Power. — The state may dele- gate to a board of supervisors the power to erect bridges over navigable streams. Chico Bridge Co. v. Sacramento Transp. Co., 123 Cal. 178. But no grant of the legislature of any right in or control over the bridging of navigable streams will be upheld which rests upon mere implication or construction or anything short of a clear and direct expression of the legisla- tive will. Dundalk, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 97' Md. 177. 73o Vol. IV. BRIDGES. 934 930 934. 935. 936. note 2. 937. 3. Should Not Needlessly Obstruct Navigation. — See note i. Public Bridge Erected Without License, or for Unlawful Purpose. — See note 3. Bridge Constructed in Unlawful Manner. — See note I . 4. Duty of Drawbridge Proprietors in Bespect to Navigation. — See See note 1. IV. Construction and Maintenance of Bridges — 1. Who Is to Erect and Maintain. — See note 3. Under the Statute Laws of Most of the States. — See note 6. 939. 2. Legislative Powers and Discretion — Delegating Powers — Granting Exclusive Eights. — See note 5. 930. Providing for Expense of Construction — Apportioning Expenses. — See notes 1 , 2. Power to Construct Includes Power to Renew. — In U. S. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 353, it was held that a railroad company maintaining a bridge over a navigable river, under authority from the state, had a right, in making repairs, to renew the super- structure of such bridge with other materials than those originally used, and that a bill by the United States to restrain such renewal could not be maintained. 923. 4. Plenary Authority Over Internal Navigable Waters. — Adams v. Ulmer, 91 Me. 47. 924. 1. Freedom of Navigation to Be Pre- served as Far as Possible. — Clement v. Metro- politan West Side El. R. Co., (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 271. So Long as Navigation Is Not Prevented. — See Hedges v. West Shore R. Co., 150 N. Y. '50, 55 Am. St. Rep. 660. 925. 3. Bridge Unlawfully Erected a Nuisance. — People v. Jessup, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 524, reversed 160 N. Y. 249 ; Carvalho v. Brooklyn, etc., Turnpike Co., (Supm. Ct. App. Div.) 76 N. Y. Supp. 859- 926. - 1. Corning v. Saginaw, 116 Mich. 78, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 926. 2. Duty of One Maintaining Drawbridge. — Piscataqua Nav. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 362 ; Boland v. Combination Bridge Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 888 ; Hartley v. Ameri- can Steel-Barge Co., 47 C. C. A. 229, 108 Fed. Rep. 97. Delay in Passing Draw. — A county is not lia- ble for detaining vessels in a river by reason of breakage of the machinery operating a draw in a county bridge, where there was no negli- gence by the county's agents or servants, or any unreasonable delay in making repairs. Pettit v. Chosen Freeholders, 91 Fed. Rep. 998, 63 U. S. App. 286. Cities — Liability for Drawbridges. — A city cannot be charged with negligence in failing to have at each end of a drawbridge a lock of sufficient strength to resist the impact of a heavy steamer. Chicago v. Wisconsin Steam- ship Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 107, 38 C. C. A. 70. 927. 1. Liability for Negligence of Bridge Officials. — Boland v. Combination Bridge Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 888 ; Hartley v. American Steel- Barge Co., 47 C. C. A. 229, 108 Fed. Rep. 97; Chicago .v. Mullen, (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 292. 3. Turning Ferry into Bridge. — In Oliff v. Shreveport, 52 La. Ann. 1203, it was held that a. grant of the power to establish a toll ferry includes by necessary implication power to es- tablish a toll bridge as a substitute for the ferry. 6. Authorities Required by Statute to Erect and Repair Bridges. — Johnson County v. Hemphill, (Ind. App. 1895) 41 N. E. Rep. 965; Leslie County v. Wooten, 115 Ky. 850; Bigelow v. Brooks, 119 Mich. 208; Piqua v. Geist, 59 Ohio St. 163 ; Newark v. Jones, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 196, 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. 563; Francis v. Franklin Tp., 179 Pa. St. 195. See also State v. Ahnapee, 99 Wis. 322. Unauthorized Bridges. — Wnere the duty of erecting and maintaining bridges is imposed upon a county, the county is liable only for the class of bridges which the statute requires or authorizes it to build and maintain. Ehle v. Minden, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 275. County Aid. — Provision is made by statute in Illinois for application to the county by the highway commissioners for aid in building a bridge, and where the statute has been com- plied with the county board has no discretion in regard to granting or refusing the requested aid. People v. Moultrie County, 71 111. App. 348. The requirement that such aid can be demanded where the bridge will cost more than twenty cents on the hundred dollars on the latest assessment roll is not fulfilled by the in- clusion in one petition of a number of bridges so that the total exceeds such limit. Board of Supervisors v. Highway Com'rs, 69 111. App. 344- Cities in Indiana are liable for failing to keep their bridges in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Connersville v. Snider, 31 Ind. APP- 218. Bridges over Railroads, — The Pennsylvania statute of 1855 does not require that all rail- road crossings should be bridged. Such bridges, when required for the ordinary needs of travel, are put on the same status with other bridges with respect to liability for cost of construction, which is borne by one or more towns or. Scott, 69 111. App. 352. Kansas. — Sandefur v. Hines, 69 Kan. 168. Kentucky. — Greene v. Owings, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 264; Stedman v. Richardson, 100 Ky. 79 ; Collier v. Johnson, (Ky. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 830. Louisiana. — Taylor v. Martin, 109 La. 137, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 977- Maryland. — ■ Leupold v. Weeks, 96 Md. 280, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 977- Massachusetts. — French k. McKay, 181 Mass. 485- , Michigan. — Douville v. Comstock, no Mich. 693- Minnesota. — Jaeger v. Glover, 89 Minn. 490. Missouri. — Henkle v. Dunn, 9 Mo. App. 671 ; Campbell v. Vanstone, 73 Mo. App. 84 ; Crowley v. Somerville, 70 Mo. App. 376. Nebraska. — Buck v. Hogeboom, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W- Rep. 635, New Jersey. — Somers v. Wescoat, 66 N. J. L. 55i- New York. — Markus v. Kenneally, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 517; Randrup v. Schroeder, (Supm. Ct. App, T.) 21 Misc. (N. 1.) 52; Woods v. Burton, (Supm. Ct. App, T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 326; Hamilton v. Gillender, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 156; Meyer v. Straus, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 613; Burke v. Pfeffer, (Supm, Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N, Y.) 774; Walton v. McMorrow, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 147 ; Tyng v. Constable, (Supm. Ct. App, T.) 35 Misc, (N. Y.) 283; Phinney v. Chesebro, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 409 ; Scherer v. Colwell, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 390; Sampson v. Ottirjger, 93 N. Y. App, Div. 226. North Carolina. — Mallonee v. Young, 119 N. Car. 549. Pennsylvania. — Kifer v. Yoder, 198 Pa. St 308. Texas. — Evans v. Gay, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 575, Canada. — Starr v. Royal Electric Co., 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 384. See also Calloway v. Sto- bart, 35 Can. Sup. Ct. 301. Where a broker obtained from a prospective purchaser an offer to purchase the property in question, giving certain shares of stock in lieu of cash for a part of the purchase price, which offer was refused by the principal, it was held that the broker was not entitled to commis- sions on a sale to the same party, subsequently effected through another broker, by an agree- ment of such other broker to purchase the stock from the • principal for cash. Burchfield v. Griffith, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 618. Where a broker made an unsuccessful at- tempt to sell stock to A, and A casually men- tioned the matter to his friend B, who pur- chased the stock direct from the principal, it was held that the broker was not entitled to commissions, as he was not the procuring cause of the sale. Jones v. Frost, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 208, 97§. 1. If Procuring Cause, Extent of Exer- tions Immaterial — Colorado. — Leech v. Clem- ons, 14 Colo. App. 45 ; Kno wles v. Harvey, 10 Colo. App. 9. Connecticut. — ■ Hoadley v. Savings Bank, 71 Conn. 599. Illinois. — Hafner v. Herron, 165 111. 242 ; Kaestner v. Oldham, 102 111. App. 372; Baker ■v. Murphy, 105 111. App. 151; Dean v. Archer, 103 111. App. 455. Indiana. — Miller v. Stevens, 23 Ind. App. 365, Iowa. — Staufer v. Bell, 99 Iowa 545. Kentucky. — Stedman v. Richardson, 100 Ky. 79- Maryland. — Leupold v. Weeks, 96 Md. «8o, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 978. Missouri. — McCormack v. Henderson, 100 Mo. App. 647, New York. — Weinstein v. Golding, (Supm, Ct. App, T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 613; Doran v, Bussard, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 36; Hobbs V, Edgar, (Supm. Ct, App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 618; Walton v. Chesebrough, 39 N, Y. App, Div. 665; Snydam v. Vogel, (Supm. Ct. App> 740 Vol. IV. BROKERS, 078 0§1 978. 979. note i. 980. 981. Unsuccessful Attempt. — See notes 2, 3. (9) Negotiation by Principal — (a) Without Intervention of Broker. (b) Principal Completing Contract Initiated by Broker. — See note 3. See note 1. Ignorance of Broker's Services Immaterial. — See note 2. (10) Revocation of Authority. — See note 3. Revocation After Partial Performance. -— See note I . See T.J 84 N. Y. Supp. 915; Kiernan v. Bloom, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 429. Ohio. — Roush v. Loeffler, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 760. Texas. — Blair v. Slosson, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 403- Canada. — Morson v. Burnside, 31 Ont. 438; Osier v. Moore, 8 British Columbia 115. See also Hambleton v. Fort, 58 Neb. 282. 978. 2. Unsuccessful Attempt — No Commis- sions. — Moore v. Cresap, 109 Iowa 749; Fair- child v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521 ; Leonard v. Eldridge, 184 Mass. 594 ; Crowninshield v. Foster, 169 Mass. 237 ; Markus v. Kenneally, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 517; Sampson v. Ottinger, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 226. See also Frenzer v. Lee, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 914; Starr v. Royal Electric Co., 30 Can. Sup. Ct 384. 3. Where the Broker Has Been Allowed a Rea- sonable Time. — If a broker fails to find a pur- chaser within a reasonable time, his principal has the right to revoke his authority without incurring any liability. Collier v. Johnson, (Ky. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 830. See also infra, this title, 981. 1, 2. 979. 1. Principal May Treat Directly With- out Broker's Intervention. — Cook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395 ; Mullen v. Bower, 22 Ind. App. 294 ; Collier v. Johnson, (Ky. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. 830; York v. Nash, 42 Oregon 321. See also Curtis v. Wagner, 98 111. App. 345. The Fact that the Broker's Agency Is Exclusive does not prohibit the owner from selling. In- gold v. Symonds, (Iowa 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 713- 3. Sale Completed by Principal with Customer Found by Broker — Alabama. — Cook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395. Georgia. — Gresham v. Connally, 114 Ga. 906, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 979. Illinois. — Pate v. Marsh, 65 111. App. 482. Iowa. — Lewis v. Simpson, 122 Iowa 663; Gibson v. Hunt/ (Iowa 1903) 94 N. W. Rep. 277. Massachusetts. — French v. McKay, 181 Mass. 485. Michigan. — Humphrey v. Eddy Transp. Co., 115 Mich. 420. Missouri. — Lipscomb v. Cole, 81 Mo. App. 53- See also Pollard v. Banks, 67 Mo. App. 187. Nebraska. — Traynor v. Morse, 55 Neb. 595. New lersey. — Somers v. Wescoat, 66 N. J. L- 551- Tennessee. — Glascock v. Vanfleet, 100 Tenn. 603. Washington. — Von Tobel v. Stetson, etc., Mill Co., 32 Wash. 683. West Virginia. — Parker v. National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 134- Canada. — Osier v. Moore, 8 British Colum- bia 115; Aikins v. Allan, 14 Manitoba 549; Wilkes v. Maxwell, 14 Manitoba 599. Recovery upon a Quantum Meruit. — See Stein- feld v. Storm, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 167. 980. 1. Principal Completing Sale on Different Terms. — Williams v. Bishop, 1 1 Colo. App. 378; Knowles v. Harvey, 10 Colo. App. 9; Hoadley v. Savings Bank, 71 Conn. 599; Loehde v. Halsey, 88 111. App. 452 ; Snyder v. Fearer, 87 III. App. 275; Lapsley v. Holridge, 71 111. App. 652; Hafner v. Herron, 165 111. 242; Crone v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 85 Mo. App. 601 ; Hobbs v. Edgar, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 618; O Toole v. Tucker, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 554; Bishop v. Averill, 17 Wash. 209. See also Henry v. Stewart, 185 111. 448; Mullen v. Bower, 22 Ind. App. 294 ; Barnes v. German Sav., etc., Soc, 21 Wash. 448. A real estate broker, who was authorized to sell certain property, introduced a customer to his prinoipal, who exchanged other real estate for the property in question. It was held that the broker was entitled to commissions on the reasonable worth of the property taken in ex- change. Grether v. McCormick, 79 Mo. App. 325. Where the principal sells for less than the price agreed upon, and there is no express agreement as to compensation, the broker is entitled to the reasonable worth of his services. Veatch v. Norman, 95 Mo. App. 500. 2. Principal Ignorant of Broker's Services. — Rounds v. Alee, 116 Iowa 345; Craig v. Wead, 58 Neb. 782. 3. Broker Cannot Recover for Services After Revocation of Authority. — Cadigan v. Crabtree, 179 Mass. 474, 88 Am. St. Rep. 397; Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521 ; Gorman v. Har- gis, 6 Okla. 360. Where property is placed in the hands of two brokers, a sale by one before the other has found a customer revokes the other's au- thority, and he cannot recover for subsequent services. Johnson v. Wright, 124 Iowa 61. Resale After Revocation to Customer Procured by Broker. — Where a broker negotiated with a certain party but failed to effect a sale, and his authority was then revoked, after which his principal sold to the same party without his assistance, it was held that in the absence of bad faith on the part of the principal the broker was not entitled to commissions. Rees u. Pellow, (C. C. A.) 97 Fed. Rep. 167. 981. 1. Suit for Breach of Contract upon Revo- cation After Partial Performance. — Where the owner of real estate makes a written contract with a broker, giving him a year in which to sell certain lots, and in reliance upon this 741 981 985 BROKERS. Vol. IV. 981. Revocation After Seasonable Time to Complete Transaction. — See note 2. (ii) Illegality of Transaction — (a) In General. — See note 3. 983. (0) Broker Acting Without License — Under Eevenue Laws. — See note 5. Laws Making It Illegal to Act Without License. — See note 6. 983. d. Employment of Several Brokers. — See note 1. 984. Division of Commissions. — See note I. e. Broker Acting for Both Parties — Double Commis- sions — Broker Cannot in General Recover Double Commissions. — See notes 3, 4, 5- 985. See note 1. Can Recover by Consent of Both Parties. — See note 2. agreement the broker makes diligent efforts to procure customers, a suit for damages for breach of contract may be maintained in case the broker's authority is revoked before the expiration of the year. Stamets v. Deniston, 193 Pa. St. 548. See also supra, this title, 978. 3. 981. 2. Bona Fide Revocation Defeats Broker's Claim. — Stedman v. Richardson, 100 Ky. 79; Buehler v. Weiffenbach, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 30. 3. Contract in Bestraint of Trade. — A broker cannot recover commissions for having secured an agreement by the terms of which competing breweries were to maintain prices, as such a contract is illegal. Street v. Houston Ice, etc., Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 516. 982. 6. Recovery by Unlicensed Broker Al- lowed. — Hanesley v. Monroe, 103 Ga. 279; Ober v. Stephens, 54 W. Va. 354. 6. Laws and Ordinances Making Acting With- out License Illegal. — Yedinskey v . Strouse, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 587 ; Saule v. Ryan, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 977. A party who is not a licensed real estate broker cannot recover commissions in Pennsyl- vania, unless there is an express contract as to the amount to be paid. Coles v. Meade, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 334. But one who is not a regular broker, but makes a sale under a contract for the payment of a certain commission for find- ing a purchaser, may recover such commission, though unlicensed. Black v. Snook, 204 Pa. St. 119. Effect of Tender of License Fee. — In Wicks v. Carlisle, 12 Okla. 337, a real estate broker tendered his license fee to the proper officers, but they refused to accept it, and it was held that, under these circumstances, the broker could recover commissions on sales made. 983. 1. Broker Effecting Contract Entitled to Commissions. — Carper v. Sweet, 26 Colo. 547 ; Barton v. Rogers, 84 111. App. 49 ; Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209; Whitcomb v. Bacon, 170 Mass. 479, 64 Am. St. Rep. 317; Cunliff v. Hausman, 97 Mo. App. 467 ; Johnson v. Lord, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 325 ; McNulty v. Rowe, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 523; Haines v. Barney, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 33 Misc. (N. Y.) 748 ; De Zavala v. Royaliner, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 969 ; Glascock v. Vanfleet, 100 Tenn. 603; Duval v. Moody, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 627. See also Wright v. Brown, 68 Mo. App. 577. Illustrations. — A customer made inquiries concerning a lease from a real estate broker, and then broke off negotiations and negotiated the .lease through another broker. It was held that the broker who negotiated the lease was en- titled to the commission. McCloskey v. Thomp- son, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 735. Where property was placed in the hands of two real estate brokers it was held that the broker who first entered into a contract of sale with a financially responsible party was en- titled to his commission, though the land was in fact conveyed to a customer of the other broker. Stewart v. Woodward, 7 Kan. App. 633- 984. 1. See Alvord v. Cook, 174 Mass. 120. 3. Broker Acting Secretly for Both Parties Can Recover from Neither. — Deutsch v. Baxter, 9 Colo. App. 58 ; Alta Invest. Co. v. Worden, 25 Colo. 215; Casady v. Carraher, 119 Iowa 500; Rosenthal v. Drake, 82 Mo. App. 358; Southack v. Lane, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 141. 4. Double Agency Unknown to One Party — Broker Cannot Recover from Both. — Van Vlis- singen v. Blum, 92 111. App. 14s ; Hampton v. Lackens, 72 111. App. 442; Alvord v. CooTc, 174 Mass. 120; Lebowitz v. Colligan, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 624 ; Norman v. Reuther, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 161 ; Brierly v. Connelly, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 268; Grade v. Stevens, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 203 ; Linderman v. McKenna, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 4°9 ; Grant v. Gold Exploration, etc., Syndicate, (1900) 1 Q. B. 233 ; Andrews v. Ramsay, (1903) 2 K. B. 635. See also Robinson v. Clock, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 67. Compare Davidson v. Manitoba, etc., Land Corp., 14 Manitoba 232, reversed 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 255. Consent by One Party to Double Agency. — Where a party at the time when he employs a broker knows that the broker is acting as agent for the adverse party, he is liable for commis- sions and cannot set up the defense of double agency. Hanesley v. Monroe, 103 Ga. 279. See also Whiting v. Saunders, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 539, affirmed (Supm.^Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 332; Geery v. Pol- lock, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 321 ; Abel v. Disbrow, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 536. A Principal May Recover from His Broker commissions secretly paid to him by the other party to the transaction. Cohen v. Kuschke, 83 L. T. N. S. 102. 5. Rule Founded on Public Policy — Good Faith Immaterial, — Casady v. Carraher, 119 Iowa 500; Leathers v. Canfield, 117 Mich. 277. 985. 1. Usage in Contravention of Rule Im- material. — Addison v. Wanamaker, 185 Pa. St. 536. See also Bartram v. Lloyd, 88 L. T. N. S. 286. 2. Broker May Recover Double Commissions Where Parties Consent. — Red Cypress Lumber Co. v. Perry, 118 Ga. 876; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 742 Vol. IV. BROKERS — B UCKE T-SHOP. 985-991 985. Broker Acting as Middleman May Recover Double Commissions. — See notes 4, 5. 2. Right to Reimbursement. — See note 6. 987. VII. Liability to Third Pasties — 1. Liability of Principal — Principal Liable for Contracts of Broker. — See note I. 988. 2. Liability of Broker — When Principal is Disclosed. — See note 2. Where Pact of Agency Is Not Disclosed. — See note 3. Agency Disolosed, but Principal's Name Withheld. — See note 4. 989. VIII. Rights Against Third Parties — 1. Rights of Principal — Where the Agency Is Undisclosed. — See note 5. Fraudulent Sale by Broker. — See note 7. 990. [BROMO. — See note 2a.] BROTHER. — See note 3. [BROTHER-IN-LAW. — See note 3a. 1 991. BUCKET-SHOP. — See note 3. N. Car. 67 ; Maxwell v. West, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 302. 985. 4. Middleman May Recover Double Com- missions. — Clarke. Allen, 125 Cal. 276 ; Casady v. Carraher, 119 Iowa 500; Hannan v. Prentis, 124 Mich. 417 ; Flattery v. Cunningham, 125 Mich. 467; Pollatschek v. Goodwin, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 587; Southack v. Lane, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 515 ; Southack v. Lane, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 32 Misc. (N. Y.) 141 ; Gracie v. Stevens, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 203. See also Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. Car. 67 ; McKenzie v. Lego, 98 Wis. 364. 6. Leathers v. Canfield, 117 Mich. 277; Nor- ton v. Genesee Nat. Sav., etc., Assoc, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 520. 6. Broker Entitled to Reimbursement. — Where a principal revokes a broker's authority, the broker is entitled to be reimbursed for ex- penses. Hale v. Kumler, (C. C. A.) 85 Fed. Rep. 161 ; Dulaney v. Page Belting Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 1082. Where a broker bought cotton for a customer on a margin, but on account of the sudden de- cline in the price of cotton was compelled to sell at a loss, it was held that he could recover from the customer the balance thus lost. Robin- son v. Crawford, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 228. Where brokers were employed to sell prop- erty at auction, and they accordingly advertised the property and made the necessary arrange- ments for the sale, but on the day before the auction the owner sold the property to another party, it was held that the brokers could re- cover from the owner their disbursements and the reasonable value of their services. Donald v. Lawson, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 87 N. Y. Supp. 485. 987. 1. Principal Not Bound Where Broker Exceeds Authority. — Planer v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc, (N. J. 1897) 37 Atl. Rep. 668. See generally the title Agency, 986. 3 et seq., 1136. 5 et seq. " Where a broker sells goods without disclos- ing the name of his principal, he acts beyond the scope of his authority, and the buyer can- not set off a debt due from the broker to him against the demand for the goods made by the principal." Delafield v. Smith, 101 Wis. 664, 70 Am. St. Rep. 938. Unauthorized Sale on Credit. — A principal au- thorized a broker to sell certain real property for cash during the following sixty days. The broker made a contract for sale, extending the time for payment thirty days after the expira- tion of the sixty days. It was held that the contract of sale was not binding on the prin- cipal. Smith v. McCann, 205 Pa. St. 57. 988. 2. Broker Not Liable on Contracts for Known Principal. — Bailey v. Galbreath, 100 Tenn. 599. 3. Broker Liable Where Agency Not Disclosed. — Lichten v. Verner, S Pa. Dist. 218. 4. Principal's Name Not Disclosed. — - Lincoln v. Levi Cotton Mills Co., (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. Rep. 865. 989. 5. Principal May Enforce Contract Made by Broker. — Dodd Grocery Co. v. Postal Tel.- Cable Co., 112 Ga. 685. 7. Compare Rimmer v. Webster, (1902) 2 Ch. 163. 990. 2a. In Paris Medicine Co. v. W. H. Hill Co., (C. C. A.) 102 Fed. Rep. 148, the court said : " The court below-' took judicial notice of a definition of bromo found in the Standard Dictionary, where it is stated that the word is ' derived from bromine,' and is ' a combining word used mostly in names of chemi- cal compounds in which bromine is a principal element.' * * * Whether the word bromo has or has not acquired a definite significance as a term of science, indicating a compound in which bromine is an element, is a matter upon which this court is not clear." 3. State v. Guiton, 51 La. Ann. 155. Intestate Law. — Matter of Lynch, 132 Cal. 214. 1 ' Incest — Brother of the Half-Blood. — State v. Guiton, 51 La. Ann. 155. Wills. — McNeal v. Sherwood, 24 R. I. 314. 3a. The term brother-in-law is thus de- fined : " The brother of one's husband or wife ; also one's sister's husband." Cent. Diet. ; Webst. Diet. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Iowa Water Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 469. In State v. Foster, 112 La. 533, the husbands of two sisters were held to be brothers-in- law within the meaning of the law providing for the recusation of judges. 991. 3. A bucket-shop is a place where wheat, corn, and pork, and other provisions, and grain are bought and sold on margin. Lan- caster v. McKinley, 33 Ind. App. 448. Bucket-shop Not a Game. — Bpyce v. O'Dell 743 993-994 S UGG&R Y-~B UlLDiNG. Vol. iv. 99». BUGG3RY. — See note 3. BUILD. — See note 5. 994. BUILDER. — See note 1. BUILDING. — See notes 2, 3, 4. Commission Co., 109 Fed. Rep. 758; Lancaster v. McKinley, 33 Ind. App. 448. And see the title Gaming. 992. 8. SeeCom.f.J— — , 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 625. 6. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 65 Ark. i8g, dissenting opinion. " Built Up Portions of Cities," — In Com. v. Charity Hospital, 198 Pa. St. 270, the court said : " The phrase ' built up portions of cities ' must be understood in its ordinary and popular meaning, and with reference to the object of the act, viz., the protection of the public health. The object of the act must be presumed to be to remove supposed sources of contagion from immediate contact with a large population. With this meaning of the act and the situation of the proposed hospital in reference to its surroundings in view, we are of opinion that the site of the proposed hospital is in a built up portion of the city of Pittsburg within the meaning of the act." 994. 1. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 65 Ark. 183, dissenting opinion. " Contractor " Synonymous with " Builder." Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 65 Ark. 183, dissenting opinion. Builder's Lien. — In June v. Doke, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 406, the court said : " The lien is described in the contract as a ' builder's lien,' and evidently has reference to the lien described in the constitution and stat- ute, because there- is no other builder's lien in Texas. In order, therefore, to arrive at the meaning of the parties when they used the term ' builder's lien,' resort must be had to the defi- nitions given to the constitution and statute. By a reference thereto, we find that the ' builder's lien ' extends not only to the house or building erected, but also to the lot or lots of land necessarily connected therewith." 3. Williams v. State, 105 Ga. 814; Favro v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 452. 3. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati University, 13 Ohio Dec. 289, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 994; Clark v. Lee, 185 Mass. 223. See also Favro v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 452. 4. Block — Mechanic's Lien. — Gordon v. Nor- ton, 186 Pa. St. 168. Monument. — Parsons v. Van Wyck, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 336 ; Spangler v. Leitheiser, 182 Pa. St. 277. Hen-house — Burglary, — The phrase " other building " in a statute punishing burglary in- cludes a hen-house. Gillock v. People, 171 111. 307; State v. Poole, 65 Kan. 713. Hotel — Burglary. — 'A hotel is a building within a statute against burglary. Bruen v. People, 206 111. 417. Planing-mill — Burglary. — A planing mill is a building within a statute against burglary. State v. Haney, no Iowa 26. Fences. — A fence is not a building within the meaning of an agreement providing that a university " may erect a university building and such other buildings as may be incidentally connected therewith, and forever afterward maintain and control the same for the pur- poses hereinafter named." Cincinnati v. Cincin- nati University, 13 Ohio Dec. 288. Under a statute requiring all necessary build- ings to be erected by contract let to the high- est bidder, etc., the word buildings will in- clude an iron fence around the courthouse grounds. Swasey v. Shasta County, 141 Cal. 392- Wall — Covenant in a Deed. — Clark v. Lee, 185 Mass. 223, following Nowell v. Boston Academy, 130 Mass. 209, set out in the original note. Building Purposes. — Under a tax providing for " building purposes," appropriation and tax levy ordinances, each substantially specifying the purposes for which the school tax is to be used, are sufficiently definite. Otis v. People, 196 111. 542, " Building " in the Sense of House — Arson. — State v. Spiegel, in Iowa 701, Building Partially Destroyed — Insurance — Question for Jury. — See Corbett v. Spring Gar- den Ins. Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 628, affirmed 167 N. Y. 596. Tent Hot a Building — Exemption from Tax- ation. — Children's Seashore House, etc., v. At- lantic City, 68 N. J. L. 385. A Greenhouse is a building within section •3 of the Prescription Act (2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 71), and therefore, if it, has ancient lights, may be protected by injunction against interference with the access of light. Clifford v. Holt, (1899) 1 Ch. 698. Fixtures and Machinery. — A covenant in a lease to pay for " buildings and erections " on the demised premises, covers and includes fix- tures and machinery which would have been fixtures but for 58 Vict., c. 26, § 2, subsec. (c) (o). Re Brantford Electric, etc., Co., 28 Ont. 40. A Churchyard Wall, so built as to form an arcade or covered way for the protection from the weather of frescoes proposed to be painted on the panels on that side of the wall which would be inside the churchyard, is not a build- ing prohibited to be erected on a disused burial ground by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1887. St. Botolph v. Parishioners, (1900) P. 69. 744 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1001. 1003. 1003. 1004. 1005. By A. A. Wadsworth. 1. Definition and Description — 1. Definition. — See note i. Other Terms. — See note I. 2. Object — The Primary Object. — See note 2. May Have Nonborrowing Members. — See note 4. Seeing to Application of Funds Borrowed. — See note 5. Whether Bona Fide Association a Question of Fact. — See note 7. 3. Origin and History. — See notes 4, 6. 4. General Scheme — stock — shares. — See note 8. Association Fund. — See note 3. Variations in Detail — Central Idea. — See note 2. 1001. 1. Definition. — Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1001. See also Miles v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 1 1 1 Fed. Rep. 946 ;■ Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319 ; Albany Mut. Bldg. Assoc, v. Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54. 1002. 1. No Distinction Exists Between a Building and Loan Association and a Savings and Loan Association, the two appellations being used to designate but one class of societies, viz., .those doing a savings and loan or investment business on the building society plan. Wash- ington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, -v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. 2. Object. — Armstrong v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; Cook v. Equi- table Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814; Forsell 11. Suddard, 90 111. App. 407 ; Simpson v. Ken- tucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, 101 Ky. 496; Myers v. Alpena Loan, etc., Assoc, 117 Mich. 389; Stoddard v. Saginaw Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 50; Coggeshall v. Sussman, (County Ct.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 384; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319 ; Meyer v. Chattanooga Sav., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 105; Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471- Loans Not Restricted to Home Building. — In Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Evans, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 1 1 04, it was held that there is no law requiring building and loan as- sociations to limit their loans to their members alone for the purpose of home building. See also Simpson v. Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, 101 Ky. 496; Archer v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37. 4. May Have Nonborrowing Members. — Tootle v. Singer, 118 Iowa 533, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ad ed.) 1002 ; Boleman v. Citi- zens' Loan, etc., Assoc, 114 Wis. 217. 5. Thurstan v. Nottingham Permanent Ben. Bldg. Soc, (1902) 1 Ch. 1, 86 L. T. N. S. 3S- 1. Nature of Association a Question for Jury. — Hollis v. Covenant Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 318. Presumption from Corporate Name. — The cor- porate name of the plaintiff below indicating that it was a building and loan association " pure and simple," and there being nothing either in the allegations of its petition or in the evidence tending to show that it had ever engaged in transactions outside of the scope of the legitimate business of such a corporation, the trial court properly treated it as an organi- zation of that kind. Smith v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, in Ga. 811, citing Morgan v. Inter- state Bldg., etc., Assoc, 108 Ga. 185. 1003. 4. Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1003. 6. Statutory Regulations. — During the period of 1850 to i860 the states generally undertook statutory regulation of the business of building and loan associations. Security Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Elbert, 153 Ind. 198. 8. Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1003. ContriDution ol Members Constitutes Sole Capital' — Such an organization has and can have no capital in the ordinary sense of the word, ex- cept the contributions made from time to time by its shareholders. Winegardner v. Equitable Loan Co., 120 Iowa 485. 1004. 3. See Winegardner v. Equitable Loan Co., 120 Iowa 485. 1005. 2. Mutuality the Essential Principle — United States. — Wilson v. Parvin, (C. C. A.) 119 Fed. Rep. 652; Columbia Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Junquist, 1 1 1 Fed. Rep. 645 ; Miles v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 1 1 1 Fed. Rep. 946 ; Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 845 ; Latimer v. Equitable Loan, etc., Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 776. Arkansas. — Hale v. Phillips, 68 Ark. 382. Colorado. — Hawley v. North Side Bldg., etc., Assoc, 11 Colo. App. 93. Georgia. — Rooney v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 119 Ga. 941; Reynolds v. Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, 102 Ga. 126. Indiana. — Security Sav., etc., Assoc, v. El- bert, 153 Ind. 198; Huter v. Union Trust Co., 153 Ind. 204. Iowa. — Winegardner v. Equitable Loan Co., 120 Iowa 485. Kentucky. — For wood v. Eubank. 106 Ky. 391. 745 1005-1008 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1005. Legality. — See note 3. 5. Varieties — b. Terminating. — See note 5. c. Serial. — See note 2. Profits and Losses. — See note 4. d. Permanent. — See note 7. g. Unincorporated — Are Partnerships. — See note 3. II. The Building Association as a Corporation — 1. In General. — See notes i, 2. Constitutionality. — ■ See note 4. Incorporation Must Be Bona Fide. — See note 5- Foreign Associations. — See note 6. 1006. 1007. 1008. Maryland. — Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Powhatan Imp. Co., 87 Md. 59. Missouri. — Bertche v. Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, 147 Mo. 343, 71 Am. St. Rep. 571. Nebraska. — ■ Anselme v. American Sav., etc., Assoc, 63 Neb. 525, afHrme'd 66 Neb. 520. New York. — Hannon v. Cobb, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 480. North Dakota. — Clarke v. Olson, 9 N. Dak. 3 fi 4- Ohio. — Richter v. Main St. Bldg., etc., Co., 6 Ohio Dec. 95. Tennessee. — Meyer v. Chattanooga Sav., etc, Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 105; Province v. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Tenn. 458. Texas. — North Texas Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Hay, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 98. Wisconsin. — Leahy v. National Bldg., etc, Assoc, 100 Wis. 55s, 69 Am. St. Rep. 945. 1005. 3. Legality. — Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 845. 5. Terminating Societies. — Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1005. 1006. 2. Serial Association. — An association which issues its stock every three months in a. new series, each series being distinguished by its number, is such an association as is com- monly designated as a " serial association." Vierling v. Mechanics', etc., Sav., etc, Assoc, 179 HI. 524- 4. Profits and Losses. — Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1006. 7. Permanent. — Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1006. 1007. 3. Are Partnerships. — Schell v. Equi- table Loan, etc., Assoc, 150 Mo. 103. Held to Be Quasi Partnerships. — Union Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Aichele, 28 Ind. App. 69. See also Security Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Elbert, 153 Ind. 198. 1008. 1. Object of Incorporation. — Meyer v. Chattanooga Sav., etc, Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 105. 2. Tootle v. Singer, 118 Iowa 533. 4. Constitutionality. — Beyer v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Ala. 369; Sheldon v. Birming- ham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1008. See also Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197 ; Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97 ; Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Nolan, 21 Mont. 205 ; South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Wirrick, 63 Neb. 598 ; Spies v. Southern Ohio L. & T. Co., 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 40, overruling Mykrantz v. Globe Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec 250.; Smoot v. People's Perpetual Loan, etc., Assoc, 95 Va. 686 ; Archer v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37. In Kentucky it has been held in cases of domestic building and loan associations that charters conferring the power to collect a higher rate of interest than six per cent, were unconstitutional. Locknane v. U. S. Savings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265. See also Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115. 6. Bona Fides. — The question whether a building association is organized for legitimate building and loan purposes is one of fact, to be determined from the evidence in the case. Tootle v. Singer, 118 Iowa 533. In Georgia a company calling itself a build- ing association, but not such in fact, cannot acquire the privilege of charging more than the lawful rate of interest in ordinary contracts be- tween borrower and lender. Rooney v. South- ern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 119 Ga. 941. 6. Foreign Associations — Alabama. — Inter- state Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Brown, 128 Ala. 462. Florida. — Skinner v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 67. Illinois. — Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc., Co., 173 111. 621 ; St. Louis Loan, etc., Co. v. Yantis, 173 111. 321. Indiana. — National Home Bldg., etc, Assoc. v. Black, 153 Ind. 701 ; U. S. Saving, etc., Co. v. Marion First Methodist Protestant Church, 153 Ind. 702; Security Sav., etc., Assoc, v. El- bert, 153 Ind. 198; Equitable Loan, etc, Assoc. v. Peed, (Ind. 1898) 52 N. E. Rep. 201. Iowa. — Tootle v. Singer, 118 Iowa 533. Mississippi. — Shannon v. Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, 78 Miss. 955, 84 Am. St. Rep. 657. Nebraska. — Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, v . Bidwell, 60 Neb. 169. Utah. — Hiskey v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 27 Utah 409. West Virginia. — Floyd v. National Loan, etc., Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 87 Am. St. Rep. 805; Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19 ; Archer v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37. Canada. — A loan company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario may lend money on mortgage security in the Pro- vince of Quebec, even in the absence of per- mission from the secretary of that province, as provided in R. S. Q., art. S470. Birkbeck 746 Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1009 1009. 2. The Charter — Power of Legislature to Alter Charter. ■ Construction by Act of Legislature. — See note 4. The Charter a Contract. — See note 5. Curative Acts. — See note 6. See note 3. Invest. Security, etc., Co. v. Brabant, 8 Quebec Q. B. 3". In Alabama under the Constitution, art. 14, § 4, and Code 1896, §§ 1316, 1318, 1319, en- acted pursuant thereto, prohibiting foreign build- ing and loan associations from transacting busi- ness directly or indirectly in the state, where the association has not designated a known place of business in the state and an authorized agent or agents residing thereat, such foreign association cannot, in the courts of the state, enforce a loan made through a traveling solicit- ing agent to a resident of the state without first complying with the Code provision. Denson v. Chattanooga Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. Rep. 777, affirmed 189 U. S. 408. But it has been held that the failure of a foreign building and loan association to pay a license fee for doing business in the state as required by the Act of Feb. 7, 1893, does not vitiate the contract arising in such business. Eslava v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 480. In Florida, Acts of 1893, P- 80, c. 4158, au- thorizing foreign building associations to do business in the state, does not relieve them from the general rule requiring the validity of their contracts made in the state to be tested by the laws applicable to domestic corporations of like character. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. King, (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 181. In Iowa the courts, as an exercise of comity, will not enforce a contract resulting from the transaction of business by a foreign building and loan association within the state violating the public policy thereof. Henni v. Fidelity Bldg., etc., Assoc, 61 Neb. 744, 87 Am. St. Rep. 519. See also Welling v. Eastern Bldg., etc., As- soc, 56 S. Car. 280. When Receiver Has Been Appointed. — But where a foreign building and loan association doing business in the state has become insolv- ent and a receiver has been appointed therefor to wind up its affairs, its failure to comply with the laws relative to its right or admission to transact business within the state does not affect or defeat the right of such receiver to institute and maintain any suit necessary to the winding up of its affairs. Clarke v. Darr, 156 Ind. 692. Compare U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136, wherein it was held that a note and mortgage executed to a foreign building and loan association can be enforced in the courts of that state, notwithstanding the fact that the association had not complied with the statutes prescribing the terms upon which foreign corporations might do business in that jurisdiction. In Maine, by statute (Laws 1897, c. 319, § 4), loan and building associations are placed under the charge, and to a certain extent under the control, of a public official, the bank exam- iner, and it is made his duty to see that the safeguards established by law are maintained and that the business of the association is law- fully conducted. Ulmer v. Falmouth Loan, etc., Assoc, 93 Me. 302. In Oregon a certificate of the secretary of state is sufficient to establish, prima facie, the authority of a foreign association to do busi- ness in the state. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. Subjected to Supervision by Statute. — Hunting- ton County Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Fulk, 158 Ind. 113: Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Nolan, 21 Mont. 205. 1009. 3. Retroactive Legislation. — In Bo- sang v. Iron Belt Bldg., etc., Assoc, 96 Va. 119, it was held that the legislature has power in granting a new charter to validate and con- firm previously made usurious contracts under the old charter granted by a corporation court. See also Smoot v. People's Perpetual Loan, etc., Assoc, 95 Va. 686. But see Crabtree v. Old Dominion Bldg., etc., Assoc, 95 Va. 670, wherein it was held that an act of the legislature ratifying the charter of an association theretofore granted by a court is not retroactive in its effect on a usurious contract made prior to the passage of the act. Taint of Usury Removed by Curative Legislation. — Building association loans tainted with usury may be legalized by curative acts of the general assembly. Bacon. v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 121 Iowa 449. See also Edworthy v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 220; Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Selby, in Iowa 402 ; Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197; Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Curtis, 107 Iowa 504. Legislation Held Not Retroactive. — Washing- ton Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fiske, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514; Home Bldg., etc, Assoc ». Nolan, 21 Mont. 205; Hale v. Stenger, 22 Wash. 516. 4. Miller v. Eastern Bldg.; etc, Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) S3 S. W. Rep. 231. And see the title Statutes. 5. Charter a Contract. — Agnew v. Macomb Bldg., etc., Assoc, 197 111. 256; Daley v. Peo- ple's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 172 Mass. 533; Louch- heim v. Somerset Bldg., etc., Assoc, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 325 ; Williamson v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 54 S. Car. 582, 71 Am. St. Rep. 822, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1009. Contract of Loan Interpreted by Charter, Statute, or By-law. — Both the borrower and the asso- ciation must conform to the charter, statute, and by-law which constitute a part of the contract, and where the contract is repugnant thereto it must yield and be interpreted according to the law of the charter, statute, or by-law. Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512; Savage v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 275. See also Schell v. Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, 150 Mo. 103; Bertche v. Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, 147 Mo. 343, 71 Am. St. Rep. 571 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Tins- ley, 96 Va.' 322. 6. Curative Acts. — Deitch v. Staub, (C C. 747 loio loi l BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS- Vol. IV. 1010. Boquisites of Valid Articlee, — See note 3. 1011. 4. When Proof of Corporate Character Necessary — b. ESTOPPEL TO Deny Corporate Character. — See note 2. Member Mortgagor. — See note 3. Estoppel of One Who Has Dealt with Association. — See note 6. 1012. 5. Taxation. — See note 2. Basis of Taxation. — See notes 6, "] . III. Officers and Agents — 1. In General. — See note 9. 1013. Are Quasi Trustees. — See note 4. Compensation. — See note 5. 1014. 2. Authority. — See notes i, 2, 3, 4, 5. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 309; Swope v. Jordan, 107 Tenn. 166. 1010. 3. Cannot Affect Vested Rights.— Kelly v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 65 Ark. 574- 1011. 2. Estoppel. — Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 845. 3. Member Mortgagor. — Deitch v. Staub, (C. C. A.) us Fed. Rep. 309; Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 84s Collins v. Citizens' Bank, etc., Co., 121 Ga. 513 Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Curtis, 107 Iowa 504 Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. A Member Is Estopped to deny the right of an association which has succeeded to the assets and assumed the liabilities of a former association, to which new corporation his mort- gage had been given by reason of the ex- piration of the charter of the old association, where the-stockholders, including such member, have treated the new corporation as the suc- cessor of the former body. Helping Hand Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Samuelson, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 134. One who has entered into a contract with an association assuming to act as a corporation is not permitted, when sued on such contract, to question the capacity of such body to con- tract or to sue. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Bidwell, 60 Neb. 169. 6. Eagle Sav., etc., Co. v. Samuels, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 386. 1012. 2. Taxation. — Com. v. Licking Val- ley Bldg. Assoc, No. 3, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 435 ; Albany Mut. Bldg. Assoc, v. Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1012. 6. Tax on Capital Stock. — ■ Com. v. Licking Valley Bldg. Assoc, No. 3, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 435- In Indiana the stock in building and loan as- sociations, whether paid up, running, or other- wise, is taxable at its true cash value. State v. Workingmen's Bldg., etc., Fund, etc., Assoc, 152 Ind. 278. See also State v. Real Estate Bldg., etc., Assoc, 151 Ind. 502; Ham v. Woodard, 151 Ind. 132. 7. Tax on Mortgages. — Albany Mut. Bldg. Assoc, v. Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54. See also Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Savannah, 109 Ga. 67 ; Atlanta Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stewart, 109 Ga. 80; Territory v. Co-operative Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 N. Mex. 337. 9. The Business of Loaning Money may be vested in the board of directors, who are responsible to the body of members for their acts. Bole- 748 man v. Citizens' Loan, etc., Assoc, 114 Wis. 217. Deposing Directors. — Shareholders cannot de- pose a board of directors whose term of ser- vice has not expired. Powers v. Blue Grass Bldg., etc., Assoc, 86 Fed. Rep. 705. 1013. 4. Officers Are Quasi Trustees. — Young v. Stevenson, 81 111. App. 40, affirmed 180 111. 608, 72 Am. St. Rep. 236. Directors Held to Be Trustees for Creditors and Shareholders. — Ferrell v. Evans, 25 Mont. 444. 5. Compensation. — Equitable Bldg., etc., Soc v. Fritze, 83 111. App. 18, affirmed 186 111. 183; Myers v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Soc, 92 111. App. 27. In Illinois no officer except the secretary of a building and loan association can be allowed pay from it for services, and a contract to pay therefore is ultra vires and against public pol- icy, although such association has received the benefit of such services. Eddy v. Barry, 99 111. App. 266. See also Equitable Bldg., etc, Soc. v. Fritze, 83 111. App. 18, affirmed 186 111. 183. Bight to Compel Bepayment of Salaries. — Nonassenting members of an association have certain rights of action against the executive officers thereof, where losses of the association are due to deficits arising from the illegal ac- tion of such officers or directors in the payment of salaries to themselves in violation of the articles of association, to compel the repayment of such salaries. People v. Empire Loan, etc., Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 69. 1014. 1. Acts of Officers Binding-. — Towle v. American Bldg., etc., Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 688; Prairie State Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Nubling, 170 111. 240, 62 Am. St. Rep. 377, affirming 64 111. App. 329; Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union v. Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union, 27 Ind. App. 325 ; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Loyd, 89 Mo. App. 262 ; Latimer v. Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, 78 Mo. App. 463 ; Tyler v. Anglo-American Sav., etc., Assoc, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 404 ; Mc- Mullen v. Griggs, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 417; Rest- ing v. Donohue, 5 Ohio Dec. 153; Cunningham v. Mutual Bldg., etc., Assoc, 6 Pa. Dist. 99. 2. Estoppel. — Prairie State Loan, etc, Assoc. v. Gorrie, 167 111. 414, affirming 64 111. App. 325 ; Shinkle v. Knoll, 99 111. App. 274 ; Iowa Business Men's Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Berlau, (Iowa 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 766 ; Williams v. Verity, 98 Mo. App. 654; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Platz, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 275 ; Ameri- can Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Daugherty, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 430. Liability of Association for False Representation of Agents. — Hartman «.. International Bldg, Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1015-1018 10 IS. Acting Beyond Authority. — See note I. 3. Duties and Liabilities. — See notes 4, 8. IOIO. Enforcement of liability. — See note 6. 1017. IV. EIGHTS AND POWERS — 1. In General — Powers Dependent os Char- ter. — See note 5. 1018. Power to Contract, Generally. — See note 2. etc, Assoc, 28 Ind. App. 65 ; Stoddard v. Sagi- naw Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 50; Com. v. Anchor Bldg., etc., Assoc, 20 Pa, Super. Ct, 1 01. See also Guaranty Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Sirako, (Ind. App. 1904) 71 N'. E. Rep. 906. False Representation Ground for Rescission of Contrast.^- Neuraan v. New York Mut. Sav., etc., Assoc, 17 N. Y. App. Diy. 72, reversed on other grounds, 164 N. Y. 248. Declarations of Officer Competent as Evidence Against Association.- — Fowles v. ^Etna Loan Co., 8$ Mo, App. 103. When Association Not Estopped by Oral State- ments of 0ffie#r<.— " Oral or printed statements made by the officers or agents of a building and loan association in direct contradiction of the by-laws, when the by-laws are made a part of the contract by reference thereto, or when such declarations or statements are in direct con- tradiction of the plain language of the con- tract itself, whether relied upon by the person to whom made or not, cannot be made the basis of an estoppel, unless such representations are fraudulently made." Noah v. German^Ameri- can Bldg., Assoc 31 Ind. App. §04, distinguish- ing Hartman j,. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, 28 Ind. App, £5. 10M4. 9. Mast Be Acting as Officer. — Towle v. American Bldg., ete., Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 688 ; Co- lumbia Bldg., etc., Assoe. v. Lyttle, 16 Colo. App. 423 ; National Bldg. Assoc v. Quin, 120 Ga. 358 ; Huntington County Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Em- erick, 23 Ind- App, 175 ; Hasselmcyer v. Avon- dale Loan, etc,, Co., jo Ohio Dec, 570 ; McMul- len v. Griggs, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 417; Merchant- ville Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Zane, (N. J. 1897) 38 AtJ, Rep. 420 ; Mutual Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Johnson, 7 Pa. Dist. 729; Erthal v. Glueck, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 402 ; Williamson v. Eastern Bidg., etc, Assoc,, 54 S, Car. 582, 71 Am. St. Rep. 822; Lane V, Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 329. 4, Ratification. — Marion Trust Co. v. Cres- cent Loan, etc., Co., 27 Ind. App, 45*, 8 7 A «n- St. Rep. 257; MeMullen v. Griggs, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct, 417. 5. Notice to Officer. — Inter-State Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Ayres, 71 HI. App. 529, aMrm£d 177 Ul, 9. 1015. 1. Cannot Change Scope of Business. — Towle v, American Bldg., etc, Co., 78 Fed. Rep. (688; Columbia Bldg,, etc., Assoc, v. Lyttle, iti Colo. App- 423 ; Christopher Columbus Bldg., etc, Assoc, v- Krjete, 192 IU. 128, modifying 87 III. -AjPjP. 51; Williamson ». Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 54 §, Car. 582, 71 Am. St. Rep. 822. Misconduct of Officers in conducting the af- fairs of the association cannot change its char- acter or release a member from a contract obli- gation. Smith v. Southern Bldg., etc, Assoc, jji Ga. 8ti. Katter of Opinion as Affecting the Contract, — .hnvfimm expressed, e\m ii not realized, does not yitiate a contract with the association. Beyer v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Ala. 369. See also Gale v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 117. Fed. Rep. 732; Motes v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 137 Ala. 369; Johnson v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 125 Ala. 465, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; Hough v. Maupin, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 717; Cantwell v. Welch, 187 111. 275 ; Wayne International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Gilmore, (Ind. App. 1904) 72 N. E. Rep. 190 ; No. 5 Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union v. Driver, 31 Ind. App. 691 ; Noah v. German- American Bldg. Assoc, 31 Ind. App. 504; Union Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Aichele, 28 Ind. App. 69; Meyers v. Alpena Loan, etc, Assoc, 117 Mich. 389 ; Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Hunter, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 530 ; Campbell v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 98 Va. 729. 4. Mistakes of Judgment. — Com. v. Anchor Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Pa. Dist. 167, affirmed 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 10 1 ; Eaton v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 7 Pa. Dist. 440. 8. Strict integrity, attendance at stated periods for the purpose of investing and loaning the money paid by the stockholders, reasonable skill, time, and diligence in the management of the financial affairs of the association, and care in, and according to, the duties imposed and the usages of the business, are the requisites to ' escape liability on the part of directors. Com. v. Anchor Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Pa. Dist. 167, affirmed 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 101. 1016. 6. Embezzlement. — An association is liable to its members for payments embezzled by its secretary. Prairie State Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Nubling, 170 111. 240, 62 Am. St. Rep. 377, affirming 64 111. App. 329. 1017. 5. No Authority to Pledge Corporate Assets fer Payment of Preferred Stock. — An asso- ciation organized under and subject to the pro- visions of Rev. Stat. Mo., art. 9, c. 42, has no authority to pledge corporate assets for the re- tirement or payment of a certain class of its stock, in preference to others. Latimer v . Enui- table Loan, etc., Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 776. See also Sumrall v. Commercial Bldg, Trust, 106 Ky. 260, 90 Am. St. Rep. 223. 101S. 2. May Negotiate Notes and Mort- gages of Association. — Bowlby v. Kline, 28 Ind. App. 659- In Washington, under the provisions of Laws 1889-90, p. 56 {Ball. Code, § 4395 et seq,), notes and mortgages given by a stockholder to an association are nonnegotiable and nonas- signable, but must be deposited with the state auditor, or with a duly chartered trust company approved by the auditor, as a trust fund for the benefit of all stockholders. Trowbridge v. Ham- ilton, 18 Wash. 686. But this rule does not apply to notes and mortgages taken by the association prior to the passage of the Act of 1889-90. Hale v. Stenger, 22 Wash. 516. May Not Bo a Banking Business, — Columbia 749 1018-1030 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIA TIONS. Vol. IV. 1018. Power to Compromise. — See note 3. Power to Make Assignment for Creditors. — See notes 4, $. Ultra Vires Acts. — See notes 6, "J. 1019. See notes I, 2, 4. 2. To Make By-laws. — See notes 5, 6, 7, 8. 1030. Enactment and Construction. — See notes 2, 3, 4, 5- , Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kriete, 87 111. App. 51, reversed on another point 192 111. 128; Stefan v. Brennan, 92 111. App. 291. 1018. 3. Compromises. — Kelso v. Oak Park Bldg., etc., Assoc, 99 111. App. 123. 4. Assignment in Insolvency. — U. S. Build- ing, etc., Assoc, v. Brunner, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 996; Woerheide v. Johnston, 81 Mo. App. 193- 5. Directors cannot make a valid assignment for the benefit of creditors without authority from the stockholders, when the association is solvent, either under the general assignment statute of Kentucky, or at common law. Powers v. Blue Grass Bldg., etc., Assoc, 86 Fed. Rep. 705- 6. T/ltra Vires. — Fritze v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Soc, 186 111. 183; Marion Trust Co. v. Crescent Loan, etc., Co., 27 Ind. App. 451, 87 Am. St. Rep. 257, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1018; Miller v. Ea3tern Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 231. 7. Contract Executed on Side of Corporation — United States. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Con- vent of St. Rose, (C. C. A.) 133 Fed. Rep. 354 ; Pacific States Sav., etc., Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43 ; Bowman ■4- South Carolina. — Meares v. Finlayson, 55 S. Car. 105. Texas. — State Nat. L. & T. Co. v. Fuller, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 318. Washington. — Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc. v. K-napp, 20 Wash. 225. Wyoming. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 448, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1057. Canada. — Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., s Ont. L. Rep. 471, affirmed 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 224- 1058. 1. Stock Payments Not Payments on Loan — United States. — Pacific States Sav., etc., Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43 ; Manorita v. Fidelity Trust, etc., Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 8; Wilson v. Martinez, (C. C. A.) 108 Fed. Rep. 705. Alabama. — Sheldon v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278. .California. — McNamara v . Oakland ,Bldg„ etc., Assoc, 131 Cal. 336. Iowa. — Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 23.2. Michigan. — Russell v. Pierce, 121 Mich. 211. Missouri. — Caston v. Stafford, 92 Mo. App. 182; Sappington v. jEtna Loan Co., 76 Mo. App. 242 ; Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 55i- Nebraska. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Gilmore, (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. 108. New York. — Breed v. Ruoff, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 142, appeal dismissed 166 N. Y. 612. North Dakota. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136. Pennsylvania. — Freemansburg Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watts, 199 Pa. St. 221 ; Land Title, etc., Co. v. Fulmer, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 260 ; Johnson v. Sharon Bldg. Assoc, .16 Pa. Super. Ct. 311; Erthal v. Glueck, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 402. Texas. — Geisberg v. Mutual Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 60 S. W. Rep. 478. Wyoming. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 448, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1058. Applied as Credits on Shares. — Payments of premiums on stock are not payments on ,the loan, but are to be applied solely to the credit of the shares. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43. See also Kinney v. 'Columbia Sav., etc., Assoc, 113 Fed. Rep. 359 ; Columbia Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Jun- quist, in Fed. Rep. 645; Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 845; MacMurray v. Gosney, 106 Fed. Rep. 1,1 ; An- druss v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc,, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 575 ; Sullivan v. Stucky, 86 Fed. Rep. 491. Usurious Contraots.— Where usury exists, all 764 payments should be credited on the loan on an accounting. Fowles v. vEtna Loan Co., 86 Mo. App. 103. See also National Bldg., etc., Assoc. ■v. Glover, (Ky. 1900) 58 3. W. Rep. 418 ; Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v.. Ecklar, jo6 Ky. uj ; People's Sav., etc., Assoc v. Denton, 106 Ky. 186; O'Kelly v. Safety Bldg., etc, Co., (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 834 ; Thudium v. Brookfield Loan, etc, Assoc,, 98 Mo.' App- 377; Pacific States Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; American Bldg,, etc, Assoc, v. Daugherty, 27 Tex. Civ. App.. 430 ; 'People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Marston, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 100; Rogers v. People's Bldg., etc, Assoc, .(Tex. Civ. App- 1900.) 55 S. W. Rep. 383; National Loan, etc., Co. -v. Stone, (Tex. -Civ. App. 11898) 46 S. W. Rep. 67 ; State Nat. L. & T. Co. v. Fuller, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 318; Interstate JBldg., .etc, Assoc, v. Gofarth, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 700. 2. See the cases cited in the next preceding note. In Canada it has been held that each pay- ment a borrower makes is pro tanlo a dis- charge of -his .liability. Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471, affirmed 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 224. 1059. 2. Contract Authorizing Application by Parties. — Manorita .v. Fidelity Trust, -etc., Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 8 ; Sheldon v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278; McNamara v. Oakland Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Cal. 336; peo- ple's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Gilmore, (Neb. 1901). 90 N. W. Rep. 108; York Trust, etc., Co. v. Gallatin, 186 Pa. St. 150; Land Title, etc,, Go. v. Fulmer, 24 Pa. :Super. Ct. 260 ; Com. v. Anchor Bldg,, etc., Assoc., 10 Pa. Dist. 167, affirmed 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 101 ; Pioneer Bldg,, etc., Assoc, v. Everheart, 18 Tex. Civ. APP- '92. The Courts Will Enforce Such an Agreement. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Keller, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 616. In Texas it .has been held that an agreement that payments on stock should be payments on the loan when it is finally adjusted is not usurious. Cotton States Bldg. Co. v. .Rawlins, (Tex. Civ. App. 190,1) 62 S. W. Rep., 805. See also Geisberg v. Mutual Bldg,, etc., Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 60 S. W. Rep. 478. 3. Judgment for Full Amount on Foreclosure. — McNamara v. Oakland Bldg., etc, Assoc, 13.1 Cal. 336 ; Hale v. Cairns,, 8 N. Dak. 145, 73 Am. St. Rep. 746. Must Renounce Claim to Profits. — In U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, ;8 N. Dak. 136, it was held that a stockholder in a building and loan 'association who insists on .having .his stock instalment payments applied at once in reduc- tion of the amount advanced to him, ,must, in fairness, renounce all -claims to share ,\n the profits of the association. 4. On Redemption. — Farmers' Sav., etc., Assoc. ,v. Kent, 1.3 1 Ala. 2^6,; -Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Brown, ^128 Ala. 462.; Pioneer Sav., etc., Go. v. Nonnemacher, j.27 Ala. 521 ;. National Bldg,, etc, Assoc. ,v. Baliajfd, 1.26 Ala. 155; Johnson v. National Bldg., .etc,, Assof., V©1. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1059 1061 1059. otter View. — See note 5. Amount Paid in Credited. — See note 7. Who May Apply. — See note 8. 1060. Vendee 0* Mortgagor. — See note I. Interest and Profits Not Allowed. — See notes 4, 5. 1061. 5. Incidents of the Loan — b. Interest — when interest Begins and Ends. — See note 4. Special Statutea — Foreign and Domestic Corporation*. — See note 5. 125 Ala. 465, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc., 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216; Sheldon v. Birming- ham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278; Bell v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 140 Ala. 371 ; Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc, Assoc, 114 Iowa 232; U. S. Savings, etc, Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136; Hale v. Cairns, 8 N. Dak. 145, 73 Am. St. Rep. 746 ; Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 448. On Foreclosure the mortgagor is not entitled to have sums paid as dues credited on the mort- gage debt. Hoagland v. Saul, (N. J. 1902) 53 Atl. Rep. 704. 1059. S. Credit Given for Stock Payments — Idaho. — Stevens v. Home Sav., etc., Assoc, 5 Idaho 741. Illinois. — VierKng v. Mechanics', etc., Sav., etc., Assoc, 179 111. 524. Indiana. — International Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554. Kentucky. — Kentucky Citizens' Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Daugherty, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1 178; Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar,. ro6 Ky. 115; Simpson v. Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, ior Ky. 496; Yager v. National Bldg,, etc., Assoc, (Ky. rgo4> 79 S. W. Rep. 197 ; Johnson v. Bush, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 158. Missouri. — Sappington v. .(Etna Loan Co., 9 1 Mo. App. 551 ; Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 551. Nebraska. — People's Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Gifmore, (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. 108. Oregon. — Johnson v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 603 ; Pacific States Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; Western Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377. Pennsylvania. — York Trust, etc., Co. v. Gal- latin, 186 Pa. St. 150; Johnson v. Sharon Bldg. Assoc, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 311 ; Erthal v. Glueck, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 402. South Carolina. — Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Holland, 65 S. Car. 448 ; Pollock v. Carolina Interstate Bldg., etc, Assoc, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683. Texas. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kel- ler, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 616. Utah. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v . Fowble, 17 Utah T22, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1059 ; Hiskey v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 27 Utah 409 ; Western Loan, etc., Co. v. Desky, 24 Utah 347 ; Snyder v. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, 23 Utah 291 ; Howells v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 21 Utah 45, 81 Am. St. Rep. 659; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Kroeger, 22 Utah 134; Hale v. Thomas, 20 Utah 426; Sawtelle v. North American Sav., etc., Co., 14 Utah 443. Washington. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Parr, 26 Wash. 115; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Owens, 23 Wash. 790. 1. Amount Paid in Credited — Illinois. — Vier- ling v. Mechanics, etc., Sav.„ etc.,, Assoc, 179 111. 524. Indiana. — International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554. Kentucky. — Kentucky Citizens" Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Daugherty, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1 1 78; Yager v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 197; Johnson v. Bush, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W, Rep. 158; Safety Bldg., etc, Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115; Simp- son v. Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, 101 Ky. 496. Missouri. — Sappington v. .Etna Loan Co., 91 Mo. App. 551 ; Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 551. Nebraska. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Gilmore, (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. 108. Oregon. — Johnson v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 603 ; Pacific States Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; West- ern Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377. South Carolina. — Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Holland, 65 S. Car. 448 ; Pollock v. Carolina Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683. Utah. — Hiskey v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 27 Utah 409 ; Snyder v. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, 23 Utah 291 ; Howells v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 21 Utah 45, 81 Am. St. Rep. 659 ; Hale v. Thomas, 20 Utah 426 ; Sawtelle v. North American Sav., etc., Co., 14 Utah 443. Washington. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Parr, 26 Wash. 115; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Owens, 23 Wash. 790. 8. McMillan v. Craft, 135 Ala. 148 ; Johnson v. Sharon Bldg. Assoc, 1 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 311; Lewin v. Royersford Bldg., etc., Assoc, 9 Pa. Dist. 507. 1060. 1. Mortgagor's Vendee. — Erthal v. Glueck, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 402. 4. No Interest Allowed. — But see Sappington v. ^Jtna Loan Co., 91 Mo. App. 551, wherein it was held that in an accounting interest is al- lowable on dues from the several dates of pay- ment of the same. 5. No Profits Allowed. — Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Holland, 65 S. Car. 448. 1061. 4. Tender of Settlement Stops Interest. — Reitz v. Hayward, 100 Mo. App. 216. 5. Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc., Co.,, 173 111. 621 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kidder, 9 Kan. App. 385 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Burch, 124 Mich. 57, 83 Am. St. Rep. 311; Hoskins z;. Rochester Sav., etc., Assoc, 133 Mich. 505 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Pinkston, 79 Miss. 468 ; Sokoloski v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 77 Miss. 155 ; Clarke v. Woodruff, (Neb. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 314. In Alabama the fact that an association de- rives its powers from another state does not 765 1001-1066 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1061. note 8. 1062. 1063. 1064. 1065. 1066. c. SECURITY IN GENERAL — Power to Take Security Implied. — See Personal Seenrity. — See note 3. e. Mortgages — (i) In General — second Mortgage. — See note 2. Estoppel. — See note j. Enforcing Mortgage. — See note 8. (3) Terms of the Mortgage — Certain Sum Secured. — See note 4. Different Amount Due on Default. — See note 5- Powers of Sale — Attorney's Fees. — - See note 4. Instruments Construed as Mortgages. — See note 5- Beference to Rules or By-laws. — See notes I, 2, 4. operate as an objection to its doing business in accordance with the statute regulating the rate of interest, where such foreign association has complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of Alabama. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Brown, 128 Ala. 462. See also Eslava v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 480. In Illinois, in order for foreign building and loan associations to enforce in the courts of that state a contract which would be usurious, unless within the exemption given by its stat- utes to domestic building and loan associations, it must appear that the statute under which it was organized is similar to the statute of Illinois, and an association which, under the guise of a building and loan association, derives its loaning fund in whole or in part from paid- up stock, is not entitled to the protection of the statute exempting building and loan associations from the usury law. Phcenix Loan Assoc. t\ Stringham, 81 111. App. 48. See also Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc., Co., 173 111. 621. In Nebraska the contracts of foreign building and loan associations made in that state are not exempt from the penalties denounced against usurious transaction by the statutes. Anselme v. American Sav., etc., Assoc, 66 Neb. 520, affirming 63 Neb. 525. See also People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. -0. Shaffer, 63 Neb. 573 ; Building, etc., Assoc, v. Bilan, 59 Neb. 458 ; Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Strine, 58 Neb. 133, affirmed 59 Neb. 27; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Keeney, 57 Neb. 94; Peo- ple's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Parish, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 243. lOti I. 8. Power to Take Security Implied. — Coggleshall v. Sussman, (County Ct.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 384. 1062. 3. Personal Security. — Home Sav., etc., Co. v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 115 Iowa 394. The requirement of the Missouri statute to take real security is directory only. Farmers, etc., Sav. Co. v. McCabe, 73 Mo. App. 551. 1063. 2. Second Mortgage. — Manhattan, etc., Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Massarelli, (N. J. 1899) 42 Atl. Rep. 284. 7. Estoppel. — Reynolds v. Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, 102 Ga. 126; Boleman v. Citizens' Loan, etc., Assoc, 114 Wis. 217. Estoppel to Deny the Existence of a By-law Providing for Loans. — A borrower, by receiving a loan and executing his note and mortgage to secure it, both of which recite that the premium was bid to secure the loan under the by-laws of the association, is estopped from disputing the existence of a by-law providing for a fixed 766 rate of premium. Collins v. Cobe, 202 111. 469, affirming 104 111. App. 142. 8. Enforcing Mortgage. — Palmer v. De Witt County Bldg. Assoc, 79 III. App. 362. 1064. 4. To Secure Definite Sum. — Inter- national Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Bratton, 24 Ind. App. 654 ; Home Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Mason, 127 Mich. 676; Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471, affirmed 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 224. Intention Must Be Expressed in Instrument. — Where it is apparent from the terms of a mort- gage that it was intended for a security for the payment of a designated sum, the same being the principal, interest, and premium of a loan by the association, the covenant that the mortgagor will perform all engagements accord- ing to the by-laws and articles of the associa- tion refers simply to the loans. Any intention to make the mortgage a security for the pay- ment of stock should be expressly set out in the instrument by appropriate language. Beso v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 201 Pa. St. 355. See also to same effect Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Olmsted, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 387. Construction Favorable to Subscriber. — Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Olmsted, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 387. 5. Accelerated Payments. — Yankton Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Dowling, 10 S. Dak. 540. Where the mortgage itself authorizes a sale on failure strictly to observe and conform to the provisions of the by-laws and regulations, and such by-laws and regulations provide for a fine for nonpayment of interest and dues, and that the borrower shall execute a mortgage to secure them, a sale of the property may be made on default in the payment of the fines. Setliff v. North Nashville Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 546. 1065. 4. Columbian Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Rice, 68 S. Car. 236 ; Crenshaw v. Hedrick, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 52. 6. Instruments Construed as Mortgages. — Rear v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Neb. 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 643. 1066. 1. By-laws Will Not Prevail Against an Express Agreement where such agreement, set forth in the mortgage, and the by-laws are inconsistent and in irreconcilable conflict. Well- ing v. Eastern Bldg.. etc., Assoc, 56 S. Car. 280. 2. Palmer v. De Witt County Bldg. Assoc, 79 111. App. 362 ; Wayne International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Skelton, 27 Ind. App. 624 : Racer v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ind. App. 1902) 63 N. E. Rep. 772; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Andrews, 95 Md. 696; Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1067 106 3 1067. /. Marshaling Securities — Mortgage and Assigned stock. - notes i, 2. XIII. The Premium — 1. In General — Defined. — See note 8. 1068. Its Nature — Not Usurious. — See notes I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. See Freemansburg Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watts, 199 Pa. St. 221; Miller v. Eastern Bldg., etc., As- soc, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 231 ; Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471, affirmed 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 224. By-laws Construed as Making the Association the Agent of a Borrowing Member to keep mort- gaged property insured, and as fixing responsi- bility on the association for a failure to do so in event of loss. Geswine v. Star Bldg., etc., Co., 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. 477. 1066. 4. Canada. — Where the mortgage con- tains a covenant that monthly payments will be made by the mortgagor according to the by-laws of the association until the shares shall have ma- tured, the association has power by a by-law passed subsequent to the date of the execution of the mortgage to change the mode of pay- ment from fixed monthly instalments, as stipu- lated in the mortgage, to a provision by which the mortgage should be released on the ma- turity oT the shares. Williams v. Dominion Permanent Loan Co., 1 Ont. L. Rep. 532. 1067. 1. Mortgage and Assigned Stock. — Plank v. Indiana Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 28 Ind. App. 259 ; Johnson v. Sharon Bldg. Assoc, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 311; Lewin v. Royersford Bldg., etc., Assoc, 9 Pa. Dist. 507. Stock Proceeds Applied First. — In Hoagland v. Saul, (N. J. 1902) 53 Atl. Rep. 704, it was held that the assigned stock should be sold and the proceeds applied on the mortgage debt before enforcing the mortgage lien on the premises. 2. Where Land Has Been Conveyed. — Caston v. Stafford, 92 Mo. App. 182; Lewin v. Royers- ford Bldg., etc., Assoc, 9 Pa. Dist. 507. Application of Payments. — A building associa- tion, to whom one of its stockholders is in- debted for stock subscription and also on a note secured by a mortgage, cannot be forced by a junior mortgagee to impute partial pay- ments made by the debtor upon the mortgage debt, when, under the contract between the parties, they were to be imputed to the stock indebtedness. Union Nat. Bank v. Hyams, 50 La. Ann. 11 10. See to same effect Provident Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Carter, 107 Wis. 383. Effect of Release of Stock Held as Collateral Security. — If the association holds both a mort- gage and an assignment of a member's stock as collateral security for a loan, and the bor- rower subsequently executes a second mortgage on the same premises to a third party, the association, as senior creditor, cannot, after no- tice of the junior incumbrance, release his peculiar security without running the risk of having its value charged against him, if the common security is insufficient. Merchantville Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Zane, (N. J. 1897) 38 Atl. Rep. 420. 8. Premium Defined. — Cantwell v. Welch. 187 111. 275 ; White v. Williams, 90 Md. 719 ; Wash- ington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319 ; Western Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377 ; Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 448, cit- 767 ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1067. 1068. 1. Alabama. — Motes v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 137 Ala. 369; Sheldon v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278. Georgia. — Collins u. Citizens' Bank, etc., Co., 121 Ga. 513. Idaho. — Stevens v. Home Sav., etc., Assoc, 5 Idaho 741. Missouri. — McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep. 592; Laidley v. Cram, 96 Mo. App. 580. Oregon. — Hubert v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 71. Utah. — Howells v. Pacific States Sav., etc, Co., 21 Utah 45, 81 Am. St. Rep. 659. Canada. — Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 3 Ont. L. Rep. 191, reversed on other grounds, 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471. Premium on Stock and Interest on Loans Are Separable Obligations. — Bell v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 140 Ala. 371. 2. Nonusurious — United States. — Bedford v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 181 U. S. 227; Pacific States Sav., etc, Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43 ; Alexander v. Southern Home Bldg., etc, Assoc, 120 Fed. Rep. 963 (under Georgia law) ; Gale v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 732 (under Alabama law); Deitch v. Staub, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 309 (under Tennessee law) ; Hieronymus v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 101 Fed. Rep. 12, affirmed (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. Rep. 1005 (under New York laws) ; Miles v. New South Bldg., etc, Assoc, in Fed. Rep. 946 (under Louisiana laws) ; Southern Bldg., etc, Assoc. v. Rector, (C. C. A.) 98 Fed. Rep. 171 (under Alabama laws) ; Guarantee Sav., etc., Co. v. Alexander, 96 Fed. Rep. 870 (under District of Columbia laws) ; Andruss v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 575 (under Nezv York laws). Alabama. — Motes v. People's Bldg., etc.. As- soc, 137 Ala. 369, following Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Brown, 128 Ala. 4 J 62 ; Beyer v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Ala. 369; Shel- don v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278; Farmers Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Kent, 131 Ala. 246 ; Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Brown, 128 Ala. 462 ; Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Nonne- macher, 127 Ala. 521. Arkansas. — ■ Farmers Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Fer- guson, 69 Ark. 352. Georgia. — Collins v. Citizens' Bank, etc., Co., 121 Ga. 513; Kirklin v. Atlas Sav., etc., As- soc, 107 Ga. 313; Morgan v. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, inS Ga. 185. Illinois. — Collins v. Cobe, 202 III. 469; Hed- Iey v. Geissler, 90 111. App. 565. Indiana. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Rider, 155 Ind. 704; Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Peed, (Ind. 1898) 52 N. E. Rep. 201. Iowa. — Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 232 ; Wileoxen v. Smith, 107 Iowa 555, 70 Am. St. Rep. 220. 1068. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1068. Sometimes Held to Be Interest. — See notes 7> 8. Michigan. — Myers v. Alpena Loan, etc., As- soc, 117 Mich. 389. Minnesota, — ■ Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97. Missouri. — McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep. 592; Stanley v. Verity, 98 Mo. App. 632 ; Laidley v. Cram, 96 Mo. App. 580; Cover v. Mercantile Miit. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 93 Mo. App. 302 ; Moses v. National Loan, etc., Co., 92 Mo. App. 4«4- New York. — Hall v. Stowell, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 21 ; Mutual Ben. Loan, etc., Co.. v. Lynch, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 559, reversing (Supm. Ct. Spec T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 499; Roberts v. Murray, (County Ct.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 339, affirmed 89 N. Y. App. Div. 616; Coggeshall v. Sussman, (County Ct.) 41 Misc. (N. Y.) 384. North Dakota. — U. S. Savings, etc, Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136. Ohio. — Spies v. Southern Ohio L. & T. Co., 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 40, overruling Mykrantz v. Globe Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 250 ; Peoples Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Roberts, 5 Ohio Dec. 489. Utah. — Howells v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 21 Utah 45, 81 Am. St. Rep. 659. Wisconsin. — Boleman v. Citizens' Loan, etc., Assoc, 114 Wis. 217. Wyoming. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac Rep. 448. Canada. — Guertin v. Sansterre, 27 Can. Sup. Ct. 522; Lee v. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co., 3 Ont. L. Rep. 191, reversed on other grounds 5 Ont. L. Rep. 471. In Bowman v. Cleveland Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 669, it was held that a premium bid of forty per .cent., with an assessment of three dollars per month on six hundred dollars' worth of stock, and six per cent, interest on a six hundred dollars loan payable monthly, being in strict compliance with the charter and by-laws of the association, while a hard contract for the borrower, was binding on the parties. In Setliff v. North Nashville, Bldg., etc, As- soc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 546, it was held that the payment of a premium of twenty-five per cent., bid at a competitive sale for a loan on shares, did not make the contract usurious. Under Code Ala. (1886), § 1556, subs. 9 and 10, building and loan associations have the right, if their by-laws so provide, to lend on a fixed premium, which, together with the in- terest charge eo nomine, exceeds the interest rate allowed to be charged by other lenders. Gale v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 732. See also Sheldon v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278; Johnson v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 524; Na- tional Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Ballard, 126 Ala. 155. I06§. 3. Security Sav., etc, Assoc, v. El- bert, 153 Ind. 198 ; International Bldg., etc, As- soc, v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554 ; Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep ; 197; Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Nolan, 21 "Mont. 205 ; South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Wir- rick, 63 Neb. 598 ; Smoot v. People's Perpetual Loan, etc., Assoc, 95 Va. 686, Archer v. Bal- timore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37. And see generally the cases cited in the next preceding note. 4. Held Not Part of Principal Advanced. — Pacific States Sav., etc., Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43. Contra, — Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115. See also Locknane v. U. S. Sav- ings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265. 5. Held Hot Part of loan. — Alexander v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 Fed. Rep. 963 ; Pacific States Sav., etc, Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43; Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 232. 6. Premiums May Be Deducted as a Gross Sum, or the association may allow it to be paid in proportionate amounts or instalments. Cant- well v. Welch, 187 111. 275. Payments of Premium by Weekly Instalments. — A premium bid for a preference in receiving a loan may be paid in weekly instalments. Graham v. House-Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 52 S. W. Rep. ron. See also Coun- selman v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Va. 261. In Hughes v. Farmers' Sav. etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 362, it was held that a contract providing for the payment of the premium in semi-annual instalments rather than in weekly and monthly instalments was not a violation of the Acts of 1889, c 267. Premium May Be Taken in Advance out of the amount lent. South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc. v. Wirrick, 63 Neb. 598 ; Counselman v. Hol- ston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Va. 261. See also Hughes v. Farmers' Sav., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46' S. W. Rep. 362. Statutes Authorizing Deduction in One Amount. — Statutes in force where the loan is made authorize the premium to be deducted from the loan in one amount. Kelly v. Queen City Loan, etc., Assoc, 85 111. App. 680. 7. Moses v. National Loan, etc., Co., 92 Mo. App. 484; Hubert v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 71. See also Fry v. Missouri Guarantee, etc, Assoc, 88 Mo. App. 289 ; Fowles v. ^tna Loan Co., 86 Mo. App. 105 ; Edinger v. Missouri Guarantee, eto. Assoc, 83 Mo. App. 615; Sappington v. ^Etrn Loan Co., 76 Mo. App. 242 ; Wightman v. Siul- dard, 93 111. App. 142 ; Forsell v. Suddard, 9.-. 111. App. 407 ; and the cases cited in the next following note. Calling the excess above the highest legal rate a premium does not change the usurious nature of the transaction. Mykrantz v. Globe Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 250. 8. Usury — United States. — Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Badgley, 115 Fed. Rep. 390. District of Columbia. — Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fiske, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514; Middle States Loan, etc., Co. v. Baker, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. Idaho. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Shea, 6 Idaho 405 ; Stevens v. Home Sav., etc, Assoc, 5 Idaho' 741. Kansas. ■ — Royal Loan Assoc v. Forter, 68 Kan. 468; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kin- der, 9 Kan. App. 385. 768 Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1069 1069. See note i. A Lump Sum. See note 2. Kentucky. — Simpson v. Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, ioi Ky. 496; Kleimeir v. Covington Perpetual Bldg., e.c, Assoc, (Ky. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 41 ; James v. James, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 193; Pryse v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 574- Maryland. — Washington Nat. Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Andrews, 95 Md. 696 ; White v. Wil- liams, 90 Md. 719. Mississippi. — Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Tony, 78 Miss. 916; Sokoloski v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 77 Miss. 155; Shan- non v. Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, 78 Miss. 955, 84 Am. St. Rep. 657, affirmed 80 Miss. 642 ; Crofton, v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 77 Miss. 166. Nebraska, -j- Anselme v. American Sav., etc., Assoc, 66 Neb. 520, affirming 63 Neb. 525. North Carolina. — Cheek v. Iron Belt Bldg., etc., Assoc, 126 N. Car. 242; Hollowell v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 N. Car. 286. Oregon. — Irwin v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 105 ; Pacific States Sav., etc., Assoc, -v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319; Western Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377- Pennsylvania. — Land Title, etc., Co. v. Ful- mer, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 256. Texas. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kel- ler, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 616 ; American Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Cornibe, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 1026; Walter v. Mutual Home Sav. Assoc, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 379 ; State Nat. L. & T. Co. v. Fuller, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 318; Interstate Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Go- forth, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 57 S. W. Rep. 700 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Marston, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 100; American Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Daugherty, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 430 ; National Loan, etc., Co. v. Stone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 67. West Virginia. — Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19; McConnell v. Cox, 50 W. Va. 469 ; Gray v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 164 ; Harper v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 149. Money Held Back, — In Hyland v. Phoenix Loan Assoc, 118 Iowa 401, it was held that, where a loan was nominally for one thousand five hundred dollars, with the usual concomi- tants of premiums and fines, and the security was given on the basis of a loan for that sum, and dated June 14, 1892, from which date in- terest and premiums were paid, but no money was received by the borrower until September 23 thereafter, when a draft of seven hundred and fifty dollars was delivered to the borrower, and the account was finally balanced on the following December 23 by delivering to the borrower another draft for five hundred and seventy-nine dollars, and charging him the sum of one hundred and seventy-one dollars for the monthly instalments which had accrued at that date, the transaction was not within the protec- tion of the statute, and was treated as usurious. Florida Rule as to Foreign Building and Loan Associations. — A foreign building and loan I Supp, E, of L— 49 7 6 9 association is not permitted to charge interest at the rate of six per cent, and a fixed pre- mium of six per cent, on loans to its members in the state; the contract being made subject to the laws of Florida. Skinner v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 67. In Nebraska a contract which provides for six per cent, interest, payable monthly, on a loan of one thousand five hundred dollars, and also provides for a premium of one thousand five hundred dollars to be paid by the borrower by taking stock in that amount in a foreign cor- poration which has not complied with the stat- ute laws regulating building and loan associa- tions, and making monthly payments on such stock of nine dollars until the same is matured, is usurious. Anselme v. American Sav., etc.; Assoc, 66 Neb. 520. 1069. 1. See Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fiske, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514; Middle States Loan, etc., Co. v. Baker, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc, Assoc. v. Burch, 124 Mich. 57, 83 Am. St. Rep- 311. In West Virginia a building and loan asso- ciation contract, requiring the payment of a fixed monthly premium on the loan for an in- definite time, is usurious. Harper v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 149. In Laidley v. Cram, 96 Mo. App. 580, it was held that, unless such premiums, by an annual apportionment through all the years of the loan, when added to the five per cent, named in the bond, make the total interest charged in excess of what may be lawfully agreed on in writing, the loan is not usurious. Where the charter of an association provides that the money shall be loaned to members upon competitive bidding, and premiums bid shall be paid in cash before the loan is made, a loan made under by-laws permitting the premium to be paid in monthly instalments at a greater rate than legal interest is usurious. Carpenter v. Lewis, 60 S. Car. 23. 2. A Lump Sum. — A building and loan asso- ciation may fix a minimum premium, payable in advance or in periodical instalments, but such premium must be a lump sum, certain and definite, and not a percentage payable in- definitely at fixed periods. Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19. See also to same effect Gray v. Baltimore Bldg., etc, Assoc, 48 W. Va. 164 ; Floyd v. National Loan, etc., Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 87 Am. St. Rep. 805 ; McConnell v. Cox, 50 W. Va. 469 ; Racer v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, 159 Ind. 697 ; International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Radebaugh, 159 Ind. 549; Coppes v. Union Nat. Sav., etc, Assoc, 133 Ind. App. 367; White v. Williams, 90 Md. 719; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Andrews, 95 Md. 696. But see Counselman v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Va. 261, wherein it was held that, if the premium is only payable until the maturity of the loan, and that period is fixed by the bond and deed of trust securing it, the payment of the premium can- not be exacted beyond such period, and, there- fore, the date of the maturity of the loan being fixed and definite, it renders Uk amount q{ 1069 1070 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1069. Legalized by Statute. — See notes 5, 6. Recovery on Repayment of Loan. — See note J. 1070. 2. Minimum Premiums. — See notes i, 2. premium definite and certain also, although paid in instalments. 1069. 5. Statutes Authorizing Premiums. — Boleman v. Citizens' Loan, etc., Assoc., 114 Wis. 217. See also Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 110 Fed. Rep. 845; Edworthy v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 220. 6. Auctions Authorized. — Gale v. Southern Bldg., etc, Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 732; Counsel- man v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 97 Va. 261. See also supra, this title, 1054. 8. 7. Premium Not to Be Credited on Foreclosure. — A premium originally deducted from the loan, being a voluntary payment by the appli- cant as an entrance fee and exacted by the asso- ciation under its constitution and by-laws, the borrower is not entitled to any credit therefor on account of either principal or interest on foreclosure of his mortgage to the association. State Mut. Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. O'Callaghan, (N. J. 1904) 57 Atl. Rep. 496. 1070. 1. Minimum Premium Held Unlawful — United States. — Deitch v. Staub, (C. C. A.) US Fed. Rep. 309; Coltrane v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 293; Douglass v. Kavanaugh, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 373. Florida. — Skinner v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 67. Illinois. — Jurgens v. Jamieson, 97 111. App. 557, affirmed 195 111. 86; Assets Realization Co. v. Wightman, 105 111. App. 618; Trainor v. German-American Sav., etc., Assoc, 102 111. App. 604. Iowa. — Wilcoxen v. Smith, 107 Iowa 555, 70 Am. St. Rep. 220 ; Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197. Kansas. — Mutual Home, etc., Assoc, v. Worz, 67 Kan. 506. Michigan. — Stoddard v. Saginaw Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 50; Estey v. Capitol Invest., etc., Assoc, 131 Mich. 502. See also Myers v. Alpena Loan, etc., Assoc, 117 Mich. 389. Missouri. — Clark v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 388 ; McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep. 592. Nebraska. — South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc. v. Wirrick, 63 Neb. 598. Oregon. — Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. Pennsylvania. — Land Title, etc., Co. v. Ful- mer, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 256. South Carolina. — Carpenter v. Lewis, 60 S. Car. 23. South Dakota. — Clarke v. Conners, (S. Dak. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 883. Tennessee. — Star, etc., Assoc, v. Woods, 100 Tenn. 121 ; Meyer v. Chattanooga Sav., etc, Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 705; Graham v. House-Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 32 S. W. Rep. 1011. Bid Defined. — "A bid is an offer at an auc- tion sale to pay a certain price for the property on sale. An offer may be made as well in writ- ing as orally, and where there are a number of bids in writing for the same property that is offered at auction, unless they all bid the same amount on like terms, it cannot be said there were no competing bids at the sale." Edinger v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 83 Mo. App. 615. See also Hughes v. Farmers' Sav., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 362. In Illinois. — Making a successful bid for a loan constitutes the bidder a member of the association, and such member is estopped from setting up the irregularities of the meeting where the bid was made. Lurton v. Jackson 1 ville Loan, etc., Assoc, 187 111. 141, affirming 87 111. App. 395- In Indiana, under Acts 1897, p. 287, § 9, it is competent and lawful for a borrower from the association to agree in writing upon a given rate of premium in addition to the interest to be paid upon each loan, without bidding, the premium thereof to be by instalments instead of in gross. The act further legalizes all such contracts previously made. International Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554; U. S. Sav- ings, etc., Co. v. Rider, 155 Ind. 704. See also International Bldg., etc, Assoc v. Radebaugh, 1 59 Ind. 549. In Iowa, under Code (1897), § 1898, the necessity for competitive bidding was removed, and by Acts of 27th Gen. Assem., c 48, said section 1898 is made retroactive. Tootle v. Singer, 118 Iowa 533. See also Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197- When By-law Fixing Minimum Premium Not Prejudicial. — The rule that the bidding must be free is not violated by a by-law fixing a minimum premium of twenty-five per cent., where the loan is awarded after competitive bidding, at an advance of thirty and thirty-one per cent. Dailey v. Saginaw Bldg., etc., Assoc, 133 Mich. 403. In Missouri, under Rev. Stat. 1899, § 2812, building and loan associations were required to offer loans to members only on competitive bidding and in open meeting. Moore v. Cameron Bldg., etc., Assoc, 74 Mo. App. 468. See also Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 55 1 ; Sappington v. .Etna Loan Co., 76 Mo. App. 242 ; Barnes v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 83 Mo. App. 466 ; Clark v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 388 ; Fry v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 88 Mo. App. 289 ; Cornwall v. Ganser, 85 Mo. App. 678 ; Ruppel v. Missouri Guarantee, etc, Assoc, 158 Mo. 613 ; State v. Phoenix Loan Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 477 ; Thudium v. Brookfield Loan, etc, Assoc, 98 Mo. App. 377 ; Arbuthnot v. Brook- field Loan, etc., Assoc, 98 Mo. App. 382 ; Moses v. National Loan, etc., Co., 92 Mo. App. 484; Kittredge v. Chillicothe Loan, etc., Assoc, 103 Mo. App. 361. But see Cover v. Mercantile Bldg., etc., Assoc, 93 Mo. App. 302, wherein it was held that under Rev. Stat. 1899, § 1362, amending the former statute, instead of requir- ing competitive bids in open meeting, a fixed premium may now be required to be paid by a by-law of the association, and where such premium has been so fixed and a member bor- 770 Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1070 1071 1070. 1071. See note' 4. 3. Interest on Premiums — Not Allowed. — See note 4. Interest Allowed on Premiums. — See note 6. XIV. TJSTJEY — 1. In General — Substance and Not Form the Criterion. — Combining Dues and Interest. — See note 5. rows at a less premium, no complaint can be heard from the borrower on the ground of usury, though the association exacts a premium,, which, added to the interest charged, would exceed the legal rate. Compare McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep. 592, wherein it was held that such a by-law was subject to the defense of usury for the reason that the bidder was compelled to pay more than ten per cent., while there could have been no bidders under that rate because of the arbitrary minimum rate fixed by the by-law. In West Virginia the statute allows the fix- ing of a minimum premium, which may be deducted from the loan in advance, or paid in periodical instalments, thus rendering the un- just, unequal, and deceptive practice of competi- tive bidding practically obsolete. Archer v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37. See also Floyd v. National Loan, etc., Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 87 Am. St. Rep. 805. Borrower Need Not Be Present. — The bor- rower need not himself be present at the meet- ing, but may submit his bid in writing. State ■0. Phcenix Loan Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 477. See also Barnes v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 83 Mo. App. 466 ; Hilton v. Rosenheim, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 658; Collins v. Citizens' Bank, etc., Co., 121 Ga. 513. Bid May Be Made by a Secretary on Authority in Writing from the stockholders, and it is not necessary that the stockholders should meet every time money is put up at auction, as open meetings of the board of directors answer the demands of the statute. Boleman v. Citizens' Loan, etc, Assoc, 114 Wis. 217. See also Farmer's Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Kent, 131 Ala. 246. Effect of Voluntary Bid in Excess of Minimum Premium Required by By-law. — While a by-law which fixes a minimum premium below which bids will not be considered may render a trans- action usurious as to one who was forced, by reason of the by-law, to bid a larger premium than he otherwise would have been required to pay, yet, where one voluntarily bids a premium greatly in excess of that required by the by-law, he carinot be heard to complain of the obnoxious by-law. U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136. See also Kittredge v. Chillicothe Loan, etc., Assoc, 103 Mo. App. 361. Presumption that By-law as to Bidding Was Complied with. — The presumption is that a by-law relative to competitive bidding was com- plied with until the contrary is shown. Farmer's Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Ferguson, 69 Ark. 352. See also International Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554; Hawkeye State Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Johnston, 106 Iowa 218; U. S. Savings, etc, Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136. By Bidding by Officers or Agents. — In Ne- braska loans by a building and loan association must be open to competitive bidding, and by- bidding by its officers or agents for the purpose of increasing the premium to be paid will not be tolerated. South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc, v. Wirrick, 63 Neb. 598. The Assent of the Borrower to Pay the Price Required does not make him a bidder within the meaning of the statute. Mykrantz v. Globe Bldg., etc., Assoc, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 250. Where Balance of Fund Is loaned at Same Amount as Highest Bid. — In Stewarts. Hamil- ton Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 1106, it was held that, where the highest bidder takes as much of the money offered by the association as he desired, and such amounts as other bidders desired were knocked off to them at the same price, the rule against fixed premiums was not violated. Member Has No Right to Sell and Transfer a Bid. — Meyer v. Chattanooga Sav., etc., Assoc. (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 48 S. W. Rep. 105. When Borrower Cannot Complaiu of Violation of By-law. — Where a borrower has consented to pay a premium bid fixed contrary to a by-law requiring bids to be made in open meeting, he cannot complain of the violation of the by-law. McNamara v. Oakland Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Cal. 336. 1070. 2. Beyer v. National Bldg., etc., As- soc, 131 Ala. 369; Crittenden v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, in Ga. 266, quoting 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1070; Racer ■u. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ind. App. 1902) 63 N. E. Rep. 772; Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97 ; Peoples Sav., etc.. Assoc, v. Roberts, 5 Ohio Dec. 489. In the Absence of a Statute, the exaction of a premium and its amount are matters that can be determined by the association itself. Eagle Sav., etc., Co. v. Samuels, 43 N. Y. App. Div. 386. In South Dakota it is competent for the board of directors of an association to provide by a by-law that they (the board of directors) should have a power to fix a minimum rate of interest and premium at which money shall be loaned, since Laws 1893, c 40, do not operate as a repeal of Laws 1885, c 34, I 4. Co-operative Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Fawick, 11 S. Dak. 589. 4. Interest on Premiums Held Usury. — Pa- cific States Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319; Western Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377 ; Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Crawford, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 1071. 6. Interest on Premiums Held Legal. — Hall v. Stowell, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 21. 1071. 4. Usury — Form of Contract Imma- terial. — Trainor v. German-American Sav., etc., Assoc, 102 111. App. 604; Wilcoxen v. Smith, 107 Iowa 555, 70 Am. St. Rep. 220, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1 07 1 ; Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97 ; Meares v. Finlayson, 63 S. Car. 537. 5. Dues and Interest Combined. — State v, Phcenix Loan Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 477, 771 1071-1072 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1071. Question of Faot. — See note 7. Burden of Proof. — See note 8. How Usury Determined. — See note 1 1 . 1073. Uonthly Interest — Incidental Charges — Fines. — See notes I, 2. Law of Place. — See note 5. 1071. 7. Usury a Question for Jury. — Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814 ; Hol- lis v. Covenant Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 318; Walter v. Mutual Home Sav. Assoc, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 379 ; State Nat. L. & T. Co. v. Fuller, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 318 ; Mathews v. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 604 ; Peightal v. Cotton States Bldg. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 390, 8. Rooney v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 119 Ga. 941 ; International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554; Building, Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Froelich, no Iowa 244; Hawkeye State Sav., etc., Assoc v. Johnston, 106 Iowa 218; Sappington v. .Etna Loan Co., 76 Mo. App. 242. 11, In Canada it has been held that, where the by-laws of the company provide that t rate of interest should be six per cent., and the mortgage executed to the company provided that the rate of interest payable when the stock payments, dues, and interest were not promptly paid, should be fifteen per cent., the borrower having made default in such payments, the com- pany was entitled to the amount c'ue, with in- terest at the latter rate. Canadian Mut. Loan, etc., Co. v. Burns, 34 Nova Scotia 303. lOTii. 1. In West Virginia it has been held that the requirement of a loan that the premium should be paid in monthly instalments until the stock matured rendered the amount of the premium so uncertain as to stain the contract with usury. Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19. 2. Incidental Charges. — Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. iHeidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197. 5. Law of Place — United States. — National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Farnham, 154 U. S. 630, affirming 81 Miss. 364; Bedford v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 181 U. S. 227; Interstate Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Badgley, 115 Fed. Rep. 390; Kinney v. Columbia Sav., etc., Assoc, 113 Fed. Rep- 359 ; Kirlicks v. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 290; Colt- rane v. Blake, (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 785; Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Johnson, (C. C. A.) in Fed. Rep. 657; Mac Murray v. Gosney, 106 Fed. Rep. n ; Sullivan v. Sheehan, 89 Fed. Rep. 247. Alabama. — Farmer's Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Kent, 131 Ala. 246. Arkansas, -x— Hough v. Maupin, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 717; Clarke v. Taylor, 69 Ark. 612; Farmer's Sav., etc., Assoc v. Ferguson, 69 Ark. 352; Farmers', etc., Sav. Co. v. Bazore, 67 Ark. 252. Florida. — Skinner v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 67. Georgia. — Hollis v. Covenant Bldg., etc, Assoc, 104 Ga. 318. fllinois. — Rhodes v. Missouri Sav., etc, Co., 171 HI. 621. /ot.'.t. — Spinney v. Chapman, 121 Iowa 38, too Am. Si. Rep. 30-;. citing 4 Am. and Eng. F.ncyc. Of Law (scl cd.) 5072. Kansas. — Royal Loan Assoc, v. Forter, 68 Kan. 468 ; Mutual Home, etc., Assoc, v. Worz, 67 Kan. 506 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Kid- der, 9 Kan. App. 38s. Kentucky. — Locknane v. U. S. Savings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265; Pryse v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 374. Michigan. — Home Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Ma- son, 127 Mich. 676 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Asso. v. Burch, 124 Mich. 57, 83 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; Hoskins v. Rochester Sav., etc., Assoc, 133 Mich. 505; Phelps v. American Sav., etc., Assoc, 121 Mich. 343. See also Russell v. Pierce, 121 Mich. 208. Mississippi. — Shannon v. Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, 78 Miss. 955, 84 Am. St. Rep. 657, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1072; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Brahan, 80 Miss. 407 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Hulet, (Miss. 1902) 33 So. Rep. 3 ; Georgia State Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Brown, (Miss. 1902) 31 So. Rep. 911. Nebraska. — Peoples Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Shaffer, 63 Neb. 573 ; Henni v. Fidelity Bldg., etc., Assoc, 61 Neb. 744, 87 Am. St. Rep. 519; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Parish, (Neb. 1901) 96 N. W. Rep. 243; Building, etc., Assoc. v. Bilan, 59 Neb. 458 ; Interstate Sav., etc, Assoc, v. Strine, 58 Neb. 133, affirmed 59 Neb. 27 ; National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Keeney, 57 Neb. 94. New Jersey. — Manhattan, etc, Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Massarelli, (N. J. 1899) 42 Atl. Rep. 284. New Mexico. — Monier v. Clarke, (N. Mex. 1904) 75 Pac Rep. 35. Oregon. — Hicinbothem v. Interstate Sav., etc, Assoc, 40 Oregon 511 ; Pacific States Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. Pennsylvania. — Land" Title, etc., Co. v. Ful- mer, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 256 ; Healy v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 385. South Carolina. — Carpenter v. Lewis, 60 S. Car. 23 ; Meares v. Finlayson, 55 S. Car. 105 ; Pollock v. Carolina Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683. Tennessee. — ■ Neal v. New Orleans Loan, etc, Assoc, 100 Tenn. 607; Harmon v. Hart, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 310. Texas. — Crenshaw v. Hedrick, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 52 ; National Loan, etc., Co. if. Stone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 67. Utah. — Snyder v. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, 23 Utah 291 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fow- ble, 17 Utah 122, affirmed 18 Utah 206. Virginia. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Tinsley, 96 Va. 322 ; Cowan v. National Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Va. 1899) 33 S. E. Rep. 533. West Virginia. — Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19 ; Floyd v. National Loan, etc., Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 87 Am. St. Rep. 805 ; Gray v. gajtirnore PWg., etc., Assoc, 48 W. Ya. 164. 773. Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 107a 1073. 2. Effect of Usury on the Contract. — See note 6. Usurious Payments Applied on Principal. — See notes 8, 9. Who May Bet Up Usury. — -See notes II, 12, 13. Wyoming. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Bank of Commerce, (Wyo. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 448. Where the Home Office Is Designated as Place of Performance, the contract is governed by the laws in the state of the home office. United States. — Bedford v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 181 U. S. 227, affirming 88 Fed. Rep. 7. See also Lewis v. Clark, (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 570; Pacific States Sav., etc., Co. v. Green, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 43; Alexander v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 Fed. Rep. 963; Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Edgefield Hotel Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 422 ; Gale v. Southern Bldg., etc, Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 732; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Harris, 113 Fed. Rep. 27 ; Miles v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, in Fed. Rep. 946; Mcllwaine v. Ellington, (C. C. A.) in Fed. Rep. 578; Manship v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 845; Hieronymus v. New York Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 101 Fed. Rep. 12, affirmed (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. Rep. 1005 ; Mcllwaine v. Iseley, 96 Fed. Rep. 62 ; Lauer v. Covenant Bldg., etc., Assoc, 96 Fed. Rep. 77s ; Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Rector, (C. C. A.) 98 Fed. Rep. 171 ; Guarantee Sav., etc., Co. v. Alexander, 96 Fed. Rep. 870 ; Andruss v . People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (C. C. A.) 94 Fed. Rep. 575- Alabama. — Allen v. Riddle, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 680. Arkansas. — Clarke v. Taylor, 69 Ark. 612. Pennsylvania. — Beso v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 222. See also People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Berlin, 201 Pa. St. 1, 88 Am. St. Rep. 764. South Carolina. — Columbian Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Rice, 68 S. Car. 236; Tobin v. Mc- Nab, S3 S. Car. 75. See also U. S. Saving, etc., Co. v. Miller, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 47 S. W. Rep. 17. In Idaho the validity of the contract of = foreign building and loan association must be determined by the laws of that state as respects usury. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Shea, 6 Idaho 405- , , In Iowa a condition in the contract of a for- eign association requiring all actions against the association to be brought in the state of its domicile is opposed both to the general prin- ciples of the general policy and the settled pol- icy of that state. Field v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 117 Iowa 185. Intention of Parties. — In Ohio parties to a building and loan contract, living in different states, are at liberty to elect to be governed by the laws of either state; but where they make no choice in express terms, it becomes the duty of the court to determine from the evidence and circumstances attending the transaction which code of laws was intended by the parties to cover and govern their rights in the contract. Demland v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., n Ohio Cir. Dec. 249. Contract as to Which law Shall Govern.— Unless the contract is made with the intent and purpose of evading the usury laws, the parties may contract for the payment of interest accord- ing to the law of either the place of making the contract or of the place of its performance, without offending the laws of that state. Bar- rett v. Central Bldg., etc., Assoc, 130 Ala. 299. See also Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Nonnemacher, 127 Ala. 521. Where a foreign building and loan associa- tion advances money to a member residing in another state, they may agree that the transac- tion shall be governed by the laws of either state, and if the transaction should be valid in one state and invalid in another, the law will presume, in the absence of stipulations, that the parties contracted with reference to the laws of that state where their contract will be upheld. U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136. See also Hale v. Cairns, 8 N. Dak. 145, 73 Am. St. Rep. 746. 1072. 6. Locknanea. U. S. Savings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265; Hubert v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 71 ; Land Title, etc., Co. v. Fulmer, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 256 ; Epping v. Wash- ington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 116; Hughes v. Farmers' Sav., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 362. See also Hubert i'. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Ore- gon 71 ; Irwin v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 105; Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Oregon 319. 8. Usurious Interest Applied to Principal — United States. — Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Johnson, (C. C. A.) in Fed. Rep. 657; Colt- rane v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 293. District of Columbia. — Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fiske, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 514; Middle States Loan, etc., Co. v. Baker, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. Iowa. — Wilcoxen v. Smith, 107 Iowa 555, 70 Am. St. Rep. 220. Kentucky. — ■ National Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Glover, (Ky. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 418; James v. James, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 193 ; O'Kelly v. Safety Bldg., etc., Co., (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 834 ; Pryse v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1897) 41 S. W. Rep. 574. Michigan. — Estey u. Capitol Invest., etc., Assoc, 131 Mich. 502. Missouri. — McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc,, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep. 592; Gary v. Verity, 101 Mo. App. 586. Texas., — American Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Daugherty, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 430 ; National Loan, etc., Co. v. Stone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W. Rep. 67. 9. Cotton States Bldg. Co. v. Rawlins, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 805. 11, Johnson v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 524: Hubert v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 71 ; Irwin v. Washington Nal. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 105; Bird v. Kendall, 62 S. Car. 178; Tobin v. McNab, 53 S. Car. 75 : Snyder v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 52 W. Va. 655 ; Harper v. Middle St-ne-s Loan, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 149. Waiver. — The right to interpose the plea of usury, being personal to the borrower, may be 773 1078 S074 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1072. 1073. 1074. After Default. — See note 14. Compromise. — See note 2. 3. Recovery of Usurious Interest. — See notes 3, 4- Doctrine that Parties Are in Pari Delicto. — See note J. 4, Exemptions from Usury Law — Their Validity; — See notes 8, 9. See notes 1, 2. ■waived by him. Beach v. Guaranty Sav., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 530. 1072. 12. Assignee of Equity of Redemption Cannot Tafce Advantage of It.— Building, etc., Assoc, v, Bilan, §9 Nep. 458 ; Snyder v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 52 W. Va. 655 ; Harper v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 149. 13. Deitch v. Staub, (C. C. A.) 115 Fed. Rep. 309; Bacon v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc., 121 Iowa 449; Spiuney v. Miller, 114 Iowa 210, 89 Am. St, Rep. 351 ; Irwin v. Washington Nat. Bildg., etc., Assoc, 42 Oregon 105'; Meares v. Finlayson, 55 S. Car. 105 ; North Texas Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Hay, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 98, But see National Loan, etc., Co. v. Stone, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 46 S. W, Rep. 67, wherein it was held that, where the vendee of the property subject to the mortgage lien agrees merely to pay all legal amounts due on the mortgage, such vendee may avail himself of the defense of usury. See also to same effect Washington Nat. Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Andrews, 93 Md. 696. In Middle States Loan, etc., Co. v. Baker, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) i, it was held that where it is shown that the grantee of the original mort- gagor was admitted by the association in the place and stead of such mortgagor, with all his rights, privileges, and liabilities, he was entitled to deal with the contract as if it were originally his own, and may take advantage of the claim of usury. See also Wightman v. Suddard, 93 111, App. 142. 14. Snyder v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 52 W. Va. 655- 1073. 2, Settlement. — Trainor v. Gerrnan- American Sav., etc., Assoc, 102 111. App. 604; Building, etc., Assoc, v. Leonard, 74 Miss. 810; State v. Phcenix Loan Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 477 ; Cover v. Mercantile Mut. Bldg., etc, Assoc, 93 Mo. App. 302 ; Cox v , Magnetic Bldg., etc., Assoc., (Tenn. Ch. i8t>8) 50 S, W. Rep. 662; Milnor v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 732. See also Barrow v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 48 S. W. Rep. 736 ; Star, etc., Assoc, v. Woods, 100 Tenn. 121. In Kentucky it has been held that, where a borrowing member agrees to pay a building and loan association a certain amount as his contri- bution to make up his just proportion of the losses and running expenses of the concern, the fact that such agreed amount retained by the association was tainted with usury does not ren- der the agreement invalid as a compromise of usury. Cynthiana Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Flor- ence, 107 Ky. 636. A Borrower Is Estopped by soliciting others to attend a sale after default and by standing by and making no objection. McDonnell v. De Soto Sav., etc., Assoc, 175 Mo. 250, 97 Am. St. Rep, 592. A Final Order of Distribution in a suit to wind up an insolvent association precludes a recov- ery for usury. Rettner v. Ohio Falls Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 1104. But see Cynthiana Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Ecklar, H2 Ky. 164, wherein it was held that any set- tlement of a usurious transaction had between the parties, where the relation of debtor and. creditor existed, on other than a full considera- tion of the usury involved, is void as to the difference between the actual value of the con- sideration and the amount of usury. 3. Voluntary Payments Not Generally Recover- able. — Beach V. Guaranty Sav., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 530. And see the titles Payment; Usury. 4. Recovery of Usurious Interest. — Locknane V. U. S. Savings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265 ; James v. James, (Ky. igoo) 55 S. W. Rep. 193 ; Hughes v. Farmer's Sav,, etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1897) 46 S. W. Rep. 362 ; Harper v. Middle States Loan, etc., Co., 55 W. Va. 149. Recovery of Double the Amount of Usurious In- terest Paid. — In Hollowell v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 N. Car. 286, it was held that, notwithstanding a borrower who has paid usuri- ous interest is in pari delicto, he may recover double the amount he has so paid. See also Cheek V. Iron Belt Bldg, etc., Assoc, 126 N. Car. 242 ; American Bldg., etc., Assoc 0. Daugh- erty, 27 Tex. Civ, App. 430; Mathews v. Inter-' state Bldg., etc., Assoc., (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 604. 1. Cover v. Mercantile Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 93 Mo. App. 302 ; Beach v. Guaranty Sav., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 530. 8. Iowa Sav., etc,, Assoc, v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197 ; Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97 ; Stanley v. Verity, 98 Mo. App. 632. 9. Grounds for Exempting Building Associations. — On the theory that such institutions are profit-sharing, and that the amounts directly paid for the use of money go indirectly to the benefit of the stockholders through the increase in the value of their shares, and where loans are confined to shareholders, good reasons exist for exempting such associations from the opera- tion of the usury laws. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197. Dealing with Associations as a Separate Class. — Zenith Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97. 1074. 1. Constitutionality of Exempting Stat- utes — Alabama. — Sheldon v. Birmingham, Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1074; Beyer v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Ala. 369. Georgia. — Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Assoc, 104 Ga. 814. Indiana. — Security Sav., etc, Assoc, v. El- bert, 153 Ind. 198. Iowa. — Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297. 70 Am, St. Rep. 197. Minnesota. — Zenith Bldg,, etc., Assoc, v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97, citing 4 Am. and Enc. Encyc. of Law (ad ed,) 1073 [»0?4], 774 Vol. IV, BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. lO? i 1070 1074. Exemptions Strictly Construed. — See notes 3, 4. XV. Satisfaction or the Loan — 1. At Maturity of Stock. — See note 7. 1075. 2. Payment Before Maturity — a. In General. — See note 1. Association Cannot Compel. — See note 2. b. Amount Due on Voluntary Payment or Foreclosure. — See note 7. Provisions of Mortgage Followed. — See note 8. 1076. First View: The Loan Treated as the Debt — Stock Payments Credited. — See notes 1, 2. Montana. — Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. No- lan, 21 Mont. 205. Nebraska. — South Omaha Loan, etc., Assoc. v. Wirrick, 63 Neb. 598. Ohio. — Spies v. Southern Ohio L. & T. Co., 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 40. 1'irginia. — Smoot v. People's Perpetual Loan, etc., Assoc, 95 Va. 686. West Virginia. — Archer v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, 45 W. Va. 37, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1073 [1074]. 1074. 2. Special Exemption of Building Asso- ciations Held Unconstitutional. — Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115 ; Locknane v. U. S. Savings, etc., Co., 103 Ky. 265 ; James v. James, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 193. 3. Exemptions Strictly Construed. — Assets Realization Co. v. Wightman, 105 111. App. 618; Myers t'. Alpena Loan, etc., Assoc, 117 Mich. 389. 4. Provisions of Statute to Be Observed Closely. — Economy Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Paris Ice Mfg. Co., 113 Ky. 246. 7. Loan Satisfied at Maturity of Stock. — Pio- neer Sav., etc, Co. v. Kasper, 7 Kan. App. 813, 52 Pac Rep. 623 ; Reitz v. Hayward, 100 Mo. App. 216 ; Home Bldg. Assoc. Co. v. Tenney, 8 Ohio Dec. 391. Cannot Be Called In until Series Matures. — A loan cannot be called in, if the interest and dues are paid, until the series to which the borrower's stock belongs matures. Albany Mut. Bldg. Assoc, v. Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54. 1075. 1. Agnew v. Macomb Bldg., etc., Assoc, 197 111. 256 ; Bertche v. Equitable Loan, etc., Assoc, 147 Mo. 343, 71 Am. St. Rep. 571 ; Reitz v. Hayward, 100 Mo. App. 216; Fowles v. jEtna Loan Co., 86 Mo. App. 103; Clark v. Missouri Guarantee, etc, Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 388 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Gilmore, (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. 108; Maury County Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Cowley, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 52 S. W. Rep. 312; Hiskey v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 27 Utah 409 ; Albany Mut. Bldg. Assoc v. Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54. 2. Bedemption Cannot Be Compelled. — Riggin v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 66 Ark. 646, 49 S. W. Rep. 1079. 7. By-laws — Different Amounts Due on Fore- closure and Voluntary Bedemption. — Agnew v. Macomb Bldg., etc., Assoc, 197 III. 256. 8. Provisions of Mortgage Followed. — Hale v. Barker, 129 Cal. 419; Equitable Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Bidwell, 60 Neb. 169. 1076. 1. First View: The Loan Treated as the Debt — California. — Hale v. Barker, 129 Cat 419. Indiana. — International Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554. Kentucky. — ■ Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Daugherty, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1 178; Yager v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 197; Kleimeir v. Covington Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1902J 70 S. W. Rep. 41. Nebraska. — McDowell v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. in. Oregon. — Johnson v. Washington Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 44 Oregon 603 ; Pacific States Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Hill, 40 Oregon 280 ; Washing- ton Nat. Bldg., etc, Assoc v. Stanley, 38 Ore- gon 319; Western Sav. Co. v. Houston, 38 Oregon 377. South Carolina. — Pollock v. Carolina Inter- state Bldg., etc., Assoc, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683. Utah. — Hiskey v. Pacific States Sav., etc., Co., 27 Utah 409 ; Western Loan, etc., Co. v. Desky, 24 Utah 347 ; Snyder v. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, 23 Utah 291 ; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Kroeger, 22 Utah 134; Howells v. Pacific States Sav., etc, Co., 21 Utah 45, 81 Am. St. Rep. 659 ; Hale v. Thomas, 20 Utah 426 ; Saw- telle v. North American Sav., etc., Co., 14 Utah 443- Washington. — U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Parr, 26 Wash. 115; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Owens, 23 Wash. 790 ; Hopkins v. Hale, 23 Wash. 790; Hale v. Stenger, 22 Wash. 516, 699. Contract Treated as a Loan of Which the Stock Contract Is a Part. — People's Bldg., etc, Assoc v. Gilmore, (Neb. 1901 ) 90 N. W. Rep. 108. 2. Stock Payments Credited. — McNamara v. Oakland Bldg., etc., Assoc, 131 Cal. 336; Stev- ens v. Home Sav., etc., Assoc, 5 Idaho 741 ; Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115; National Bldg., etc, Assoc, v. Frisbie, (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 7; Olliges v. Kentucky Citizens' Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1903) 72 S. W. Rep. 747; Johnson v. Bush, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 158; Dowell v. Safety Bldg., etc., Co., (Ky. 1900) 54 S. W. Rep. 845 ; Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 551 ; Mathews v. Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1899) So S. W. Rep. 604: People's Bldg.. etc., Assoc, v. Fowble, 17 Utah 122, 18 Utah 206. And see the cases cited in the next preceding note. Treated as a Straight Loan. — -In Prince v. Holston Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, 55 W. Va. 19, it was held that, where a borrower sub- scribed for twenty shares of association stock for the sole purpose of borrowing the par value thereof, two thousand dollars, and not to hold any part of his stock as investment stock, the association refusing to loan the borrower on more than fifteen of said shares, or fifteen hun- dred dollars, it was not error to apply all pay- 775 1076-1079 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. Vol. IV. 1076. Second View : Fntnre Dues — The Debt. — See notes 3, 4. 1078. Estoppel. — See note 2. 3. Collection by Suit — a. On the Note — Effect on Membership. — See note 9. 1079. b. Foreclosure. — See notes i, 2. XVI. Dissolution and Winding Up — 1. In General — other Causes of Dissolution. — See note 4. ments of dues made by the borrower on the twenty shares of stock, on account of the debt of fifteen hundred dollars and its legal interest. In Nebraska a defaulting borrower from a foreign building and loan association may elect to have the present value of his stock credited on the debt at the time of foreclosure. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Gilmore, (Neb. iooi) .90 N. W. Rep. 108. See also McDowell v. Pioneer Sav., etc., Co., (Neb. 1901) 90 N. W. Rep. in ; Mercantile Co-operative Bank v. Schaaf, (Neb. 1902) 89 N. W. Rep. 990. t. Stock Payments Should Be Credited, but not membership fees. Crenshaw v. Hedrick, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 52. 1076. 3. Second View : Only Obligation to Pay Duel. — -Farmers Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Kent, 131 Ala. 246 ; Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Brown, 128 Ala. 462; Pioneer Sav., etc., Co. v. Nonne- macher, 127 Ala. 521; National Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Ballard, 126 Ala. 155; Johnson v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 125 Ala. 465, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216; Sheldon v. Birmingham Bldg., etc., Assoc, 121 Ala. 278; Bell v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 140 Ala. 371 ; Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 114 Iowa 232; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136; Freemansburg Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watts, 199 Pa. St. 221. 4. Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 1 14 Iowa 232; U. S. Savings, etc., Co. v. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136; Freemansburg Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Watts, 199 Pa. St 221 ; Geisberg v. Mutual Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 60 S. W. Rep. 478. In Clark v. Missouri Guarantee, etc., Assoc, 85 Mo. App. 388, it was held that on repay- ment of his loan the borrower should be charged with the full amount of the loan originally made by him, together with all instalments of dues, interest, premiums, and fines, and other sums due and remaining unpaid, and should be credited, if he desired to surrender his shares, with the withdrawal value of the shares pledged and transferred by him as security for the loan, and the balance found remaining due over and above such credits should be received by the association in full satisfaction and dis- charge of the loan. See also Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 551 ; Agnew v. Macomb Bldg., etc., Assoc, 197 111. 256. 1078. 2. Stoddard v. Saginaw Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 50. 9. Effect of Suit on Membership, — Skinner v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Fla. 1903) 35 So. Rep. 67 ; Racer v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ind. App. 1902) 63 N. E. Rep. 772. Contra. — Manhattan, etc., Sav., etc., Assoc. V. Massarelli, (N. J. 1899) 42 Atl. Rep. 284. In Illinois it has been held that after the termination of the stockholder's membership by reason of forfeiture of his stock for nonpay- ment, fines cannot be charged against him. Armstrong v. Douglas Park Bldg. Assoc, 176 111. 298, reversing 60 111. App. 318.' See also Juergens v. Cobe, 99 111. App. 156. In Kentucky, after the borrower has ceased to make payments of the premiums, such failure being regarded as the termination of the bor- rower's connection with the association as a stockholder, fines accruing after such failure of premiums cannot be collected. Kleimeir v. Covington Perpetual Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 41. See also Safety Bldg., etc., Co. v. Ecklar, 106 Ky. 115; Dowell v. Safety Bldg., etc, Co., (Ky. 1900J 54 S. W. Rep. 845. 1079. 1. Racer v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ind. App. 1902) 63 N. E. Rep. 772, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1079 ; Iowa Deposit, etc., Co. v. Matthews, (Iowa 1905) 102 N. W. Rep. 817; Hawkeye State Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Johnston, 106 Iowa 218 ; Bacon v. Iowa Sav., etc., Assoc, 121 Iowa 449- On foreclosure the association is entitled to recover the amount due on the note, amount of unpaid interest, instalments and fines, and dues and fines shown to have been assessed, and the mortgagor should then be credited with the withdrawal value of the stock as of that date. Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Evans, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 53 S. W. Rep. 1104; Bow- man v. Cleveland Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 669. 2. Racer v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ind. App. igo2) 63 N. E. Rep. 772, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1079. Borrower Not Entitled to Credit for Improve- ments. — Where the association required, as a condition for the loan, that certain improve- ments should be placed on the mortgaged prop- erty by the borrower, he is not entitled to be credited with the amount of such expenditures on foreclosure. Motes v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 137 Ala. 369. Insurance Premiums Not Applied in Liquidation of the Debt. — Alexander v. Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 Fed. Rep. 963. 4. Voluntary Dissolution. — Under Gen. Stat. Ky., c. 56, § 8, a newspaper publication of four weeks is a condition precedent to the voluntary dissolution of a building and loan association organized under that statute. Economy Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Paris Ice Mfg. Co., 113 Ky. 246. _ An Association May Go into Voluntary Liquida- tion so as to defeat a borrower's right to a settlement with it as a going concern. Yager v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 197. See also Eminence Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Bohannon, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 1074. 776 Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1080-1081 1080. See notes I, 2. 2. Effect on Assets and Liabilities — a. In GENERAL — Order of Priority of Claims. — See notes 4, 5. 1081. See note 1. b. Settlements with Members. — See notes 2, 3. Km View. — See note 4. 1080. 1. One Association Hay Assume Busi- ness of the Other. — Palmer v. Bosley, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 62 S. W. Rep. 195. 2. Courts Are Averse to Declaring Forfeitures, and the dominant idea in every case where for- feiture can be declared is that the state should resume the franchise granted because of its abuse. State v. Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, 132 Ala. 50. 4. Costs. — Walker v. Terry, 138 Ala. 428 ; Williams v. Maxwell, 123 N. Car. 586. 6, Claims of Creditors. — Walker v. Terry, 138 Ala. 428 ; Economy Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Paris Ice Mfg. Co., 113 Ky. 246; Cook v. Emmet Perpetual, etc., Bldg. Assoc, 90 Md. 284 ; Wil- liams v. Maxwell, 123 N. Car. 586. Stockholders Are Creditors After Debts Are Paid. — Barry v. Friel, 114 Fed. Rep. 989. 1081. 1. Creditors Who Are Also Members. — Cook v. Emmet Perpetual, etc., Bldg. Assoc, 90 Md. 284. Canada — Debenture Holders Entitled to Priority over Depositors. — Re Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 30 Ont. 337. 2. Settlements with Members — United States. — Lewis v. Clark, (C C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 570; Miles v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, 111 Fed. Rep. 946; Sullivan v. Stucky, 86 Fed. Rep. 491. Connecticut. — Western Realty, etc., Co. v. Haase, 75 Conn. 436. Illinois. — Hedley v. Geissler, 90 111. App. 565 ; Sullivan v. Spaniol, 78 111. App. 125. Indiana. — Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. Tharp, 24 Ind. App. 82. Iowa. — Hale v. Kline, 113 Iowa 523. Kentucky. — Eminence Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Bohannon, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 1074, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Vinton v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 112 Ky. 622; Catlett v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 123. Maryland. — Cook v. Emmet Perpetual, etc., Bldg. Assoc, 90 Md. 284. New Jersey. — Hoagland v. Saul, (N. J. 1902) 53 Atl. Rep. 704; Harris v. Nevins, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1051 ; Bettle v. Re- public Sav., etc., Assoc, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1053. New York. — Riggs v. Carter, 173 N. Y. 632, affirming 77 N. Y. App. Div. 580; Bertin v. Falk, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 562. North Dakota. — Hale v. Cairns, 8 N. Dak. '45. 73 Am. St. Rep. 746. Pennsylvania. — Neversink Bldg., etc., Assoc. No. 3 v. Heine, 8 Pa. Dist. 443. South Dakota. — Hale v. Gullick, 13 S. Dak. 637. Tennessee. — Johnston v. Grosvenor, 105 Tenn. 353, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081. West Virginia. — Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081. Wisconsin. — Leahy v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 100 Wis. 555, 69 Am. St. Rep. 945. Canada. — Guertin v. Sansterre, 27 Can. Sup. Ct. 522. Upon the Appointment of a Receiver of an in- solvent building and loan association, the busi- ness ceases and nothing remains but liquidation. Monier v. Clarke, (N. Mex. 1904) 75 Pac. Rep. 35. See also Hale v. Phillips, 68 Ark. 382. But see Armstrong v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. When Obligation to Pay Fines, Dnes, etc., Ceases. ■ — The obligation to pay fines, dues, or further payment of premium ceases on the liquidation of the association. Seventeenth Ward Bldg. Assoc, v. Fitzgerald, n Ohio Dec. 133. Statute of Limitations. — The statute of limi- tations begins to run against the right of action of a receiver to recover the debt on the in- solvency of the association. Clarke v. Cauf- man. 66 Kan. 61. The Effect of the Winding-up Process is the equivalent of a compulsory withdrawal of all members, and distribution is made, not accord- ing to the contract relations of the parties, but according to the established rules of equity. No. 2 Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union v. No. 4 Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union, 27 Ind. App. 325. What Constitutes Insolvency in a Building As- sociation. — A building association is insolvent when its available assets are below the level of the stock already paid in, and it cannot pay to the stockholders the amount of their con- tributions dollar for dollar. Continental Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Miller, 44 Fla. 757. See also Bingham v. Marion Trust Co., 27 Ind. App. 247 ; Bettle v. Republic Sav., etc., Assoc, 63 N. J. Eq. 578; People v. Empire Loan, etc., Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 69. Where an Association Sells Its Assets and Re- tires from Business, it renders the performance of the contract impossible, and the fact that a bor- rowing shareholder is in default does not de- feat his right to a rescission of his contract. North Texas Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 344. 3. Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081. The equitable principle of accounting on the dissolution of an association must be the same whether the association be solvent or insolvent. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. McPhilamy, 81 Miss. 61, 95 Am. St. Rep. 454. Payment of Final Estimate Discharges Bor- rowing Stockholder. — Star Loan Assoc, v. Moore, 4 Penn. (Del.) 308. 4. First View — Borrower Credited with All Pay- in ets — United States. — Interstate Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Edgefield Hotel Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 422, affirmed (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 74; Mcllwaine v. Ellington, (C. C. A.) n 1 Fed. Rep. 578 ; Coltrane v. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, no Fed. Rep. 293; Mcllwaine v. Ise- 777 1081 BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. ' Vol. IV. 1081. Second view. — See note 5. ley, 96 Fed. Rep. 62 ; Lauer v. Covenant Bldg., etc., Assoc, 96 Fed. Rep. 775 ; Bow- man v. Foster, etc., Hardware Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 592- California. — Hale v. Barker, 129 Cal. 419. Idaho. — Fidelity Sav. Assoc, v. Shea, 6 Idaho 405 ; Stevens u. Home Sav., etc., Assoc, 5 Idaho 741. New Jersey. — Weir v. Granite State Provi- dent Assoc, 56 N. J. Eq. 234, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Moran v. Gray, (N. J. 1897) 38 Atl. Rep. 668; Mercantile Co-operative Bank v. Goodspeed, (N. J. 190s) 59 Atl. Rep. 802. North Carolina. — Williams v. Maxwell, 123 N. Car. 586. South Carolina. — Carpenter v. Lewis, 65 S. Car. 400 ; Meares v. Finlayson, 63 S. Car. 537- Texas. — Park v. Kribs, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 650, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; North Texas Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Jackson, (Tex. Civ. App. 1901) .63 S. W. Rep. 344; North Texas Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Hay, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 98. Utah. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Fow- ble, 17 Utah 122, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Hale v. Thomas, 20 Utah 426; Snyder v. Fidelity Sav. Assoc, 23 Utah 291. Virginia. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc v. Tinsley, 96 Va. 322. Washington. — Hopkins v. Hale, 23 Wash. 790 ; Hale v. Stenger, 22 Wash. 516, 699. May Be Credited for Fines Paid. — Thompson v. North Carolina Bldg., etc., Assoc, 120 N. Car. 420. Borrower to Be Credited on Loan for Dues Paid on Premium Stock. — Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Johnson, (C. C. A.) m Fed. Rep. 657. Credited with All Payments but Charged Pro Bata for Losses. — Manorita v. Fidelity Trust, etc., Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 8. Interest Computed to Date of Decision. — Home Sav. Assoc, v. Noblesville Monthly Meeting of Friends Church, 31 Ind. App. 115. See also Bowman v. Cleveland Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 669. Where Assets Are Insufficient to Treat Mort- gagors and Stockholders Alike. — In Whitehead v. Commercial Bldg., etc., Assoc, 64 N. J. Eq. 24, it was held that, while not departing from the general rule declared in Weir v. Granite State Provident Assoc, 56 N. J. Eq. 234, never- theless, if the assets of an insolvent association are insufficient to an extent that the receiver cannot deal with each mortgagor and stock- holder upon the basis of a settlement allowing credits for the whole amount of premium and dues paid, the same will not be allowed. 1081. 5. Second View — Interest and Pre- miums only Credited — United States. — Doug- lass v. Kavanaugh, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 373 ; Coltrane v. Blake, (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 785; Sleeper v. Winkel, 122 Fed. Rep. 736; Riggs v. Capital Brick Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 491. Arkansas. — Taylors. Clarke, (Ark. 1905) 85 S. W. Rep. 231 ; Hale v. Phillips, 68 Ark. 382; Hough v. Maupin, (Ark. 190s) 84 S. W. Rep. 717- Indiana. — Marion Trust Co. v. Edwards Lodge, 153 Ind. 96, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Columbia Finance, etc., Co. v. Tharp, 24 Ind. App. 82, cit- ing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Number Four Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union v. Smith, 155 Ind. 679; Huter v. Union Trust Co., 153 Ind. 204; James v. Sidwell, 153 Ind. 697 ; Home Sav. Assoc, u. Noblesville Monthly Meeting of Friends Church, 31 Ind. App. 115; Boice v. Rabb, 24 Ind. App. 368. Iowa. — Spinney v. Miller, 114 Iowa 210, 89 Am. St. Rep. 351, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1081 ; Hale v. Kline, 113 Iowa 523, citing 4 Am, and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1080 [1081] ; Briggs v. Iowa Sav., etc, Assoc, 114 Iowa 232, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1088 [1082] ; Spinney v. Chapman, 121 Iowa 38, 100 Am. St. Rep. 305 ; Wilcoxen v. Smith, 107 Iowa 555, 70 Am. St. Rep. 220. Kentucky. — Kentucky Citizens Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Daugherty, (Ky. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1 178; Wills v. Paducah Bldg., etc., Assoc, 113 Ky. 196 ; Vinton v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 112 Ky. 622; U. S. Building, etc, Assoc, v. Reed, no Ky. 874; Globe Bldg., etc., Co. v. Wood, no Ky. 4, 96 Am. St. Rep. 417; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, v. Rowland, 109 Ky. 737; Safety Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Montjoy, 107 Ky. 473 ; Reddick v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, 106 Ky. 94; Yager v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 197 ; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc v. Green, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 962 ; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, v. Brunner, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 996 ; Colum- bia Finance, etc., Co. v. Swartz, (Ky. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 743 ; Globe Bldg., etc., Co. v. Spillman, 112 Ky. 155; Catlett v. U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 123; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, v. Fitzpatrick, (Ky. 1902) 68 S. W. Rep. 400; Globe Bldg., etc., Co. 0. Stephens, (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 723; An- drews v. Kentucky Citizens' Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 409. Michigan. — Phelps v. American Sav., etc., Assoc, 121 Mich. 343. See also Russell v. Pierce, 121 Mich. 208; Home Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Mason, 127 Mich. 676. Mississippi. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc v. McPhilamy, 81 Miss. 61, 95 Am. St. Rep. 454, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081. Missouri. — Caston v. Stafford, 92 Mo. App. 182 ; Price v. Empire Loan Assoc, 75 Mo. App. 551- Nebraska. — Anselme v. American Sav., etc, Assoc, 63 Neb. 525, affirmed 66 Neb. 520. New Mexico. — Monier v. Clarke, (N. Mex. 1904) 75 Pac Rep. 35. New York. — Hannon v. Cobb, 49 N. Y. App. Div., 480 ; Rochester Sav. Bank v. Whitmore, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 491 ; Hall v. Stowell, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 21 ; Breed v. Ruoff, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 142, dismissed 166 N. Y. 612; Roberts v. Murray, (County Ct.) 40 Misc. (N. Y.) 339, affirmed 89 N. Y. App, Div. 616; Roberts v. Cronk, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 171; Riggs v. Carter, 77 N. Y. App. Div. j8o, affirmed 173 N. Y. 632. 778 Vol. IV. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. 1083 1083. Third View. — See note I. Borrower Mu»t Pay. — See note 2. Settlement by Agreement. — See note 3. North Dakota. — Hale v. Cairns, 8 N. Dak. MS, 73 Am. St. Rep. 746. South Dakota. — Hale v . Gullick, 13 S. Dak. 637, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1081. Tennessee. — Southern Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Easley, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 440. See Bowman v. Cleveland Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1900) 59 S. W. Rep. 669. West Virginia. — Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512. Wisconsin. — Leahy v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 100 Wis. S55, 69 Am. St. Rep. 945. The borrower should be charged with interest (six per cent, in Kentucky) on the amount actually received by him, and credited under the rule of partial payments with interest and premiums paid. The balance thus reached is the amount due. Carman v. Carrico, (Ky. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 216. Credited with Interest and Premiums Paid but Not with Dues. — Williamson v. Glove Bldg., etc., Co., (Tenn. Ch. 1901) 64 S. W. Rep. 298 •, Johnston v. Grosvenor, 105 Tenn. 353 ; Carpenter v. Richardson, 101 Tenn. 176. Borrowing members are not entitled to have dues paid on stock deducted from- their in- debtedness, but such dues stand as a credit until final adjustment. Steele v. New Park City Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Ky. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 177. Ho Credit for Interest on Premiums. — Barry v. Friel, 114 Fed. Rep. 989. Credit for Sues Paid in Ignorance of Insolvency. — The borrower is entitled to credit on his debt for dues paid in ignorance of the true financial condition of the association after it becomes insolvent. Johnston v. Grosvenor, 105 Tenn. 353- Value of Stock. — Upon the insolvency of an association a borrower is not entitled to be credited with the value of his stock, as the amount due him on that account can only be ascertained by the liquidation and winding up of the association, at which time the assets will be disturbed pro rata. Gary v. Verity, 101 Mo. App. 586. See also Ottensoser v. Scott, (Fla. •904) 37 So. Rep. 161. In New York it has been held that a bor- rower is immediately entitled to have his note, secured by his stock as collateral, credited with' the value of his stock, upon the insolvency of the association, if such value can be ap- proximated. Robinson v. Spencer, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 493. Compare People v. New York Bldg. Loan Banking Co., 101 N. Y. App. Div. 484. 10§2. 1. Third View — Unearned Premium Credited. — Gunby v. Armstrong, (C. C. A.) 133 Fed. Rep. 417, citing 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1082 and notes ; Gwinn v. Iron Belt Bldg., etc., Assoc, 132 Fed. Rep. 710; MacMurray v. Gosney, 106 Fed. Rep. 11; Sulli- van v. Stucky, 86 Fed. Rep. 401 ; Hedley v. Geissler, 90 111. App. 565 ; Doolincr v. Smith, 89 111. App. 26 ; Barry v. Downs, 87 III. App. 486; Dooling v. Coats, 86 111. App. 411; Dool- ing v. Davis, 84 111. App. 393 ; Sullivan v. Spaniol, 78 111. App. 125; Choisser v. Young, 69 111. App. 252 ; Ferrell v. Evans, 25 Mont. 444. Borrower Should Not Be Charged with Earned Premium. — .Ottensoser v. Scott, (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 161. 2. Borrower Must Pay at Once — United States. — Lewis v. Clark, (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 570; Miles v. New South Bldg., etc., Assoc, in Fed. Rep. 946. Arkansas. — Hale v. Phillips, 68 Ark. 382. California. — Hale v. Barker, 129 Cal. 419. Connecticut. — Western Realty, etc., Co. v. Haase, 75 Conn. 436. Illinois. — Sullivan v. Spaniol, 78 111. App. 126. Indiana. — Number Four Fidelity Bldg., etc., Union v. Smith, 155 Ind. 679; Marion Trust Co. v. Edwards Lodge, 153 Ind. 96. Iowa. — Spinney v. Chapman, 121 Iowa 38, 100 Am. St. Rep. 305. Kentucky. — Eminence Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Bohannon, (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 1074, quoting 4 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 1082; U. S. Building, etc., Assoc, v. Row- land, 109 Ky. 737. Michigan. — Home Sav., etc., Assoc, v. Mason, 127 Mich. 676. Mississippi. — People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. McPhilamy, 81 Miss. 61, 95 Am. St. Rep. 454. Missouri. — Woerheide v. Johnston, 81 Mo. App. 193. New Jersey. — Bettle v. Republic Sav., etc., Assoc, (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 1053; Weir v. Granite State Provident Assoc, 56 N. J. Eq. 234- New York. — Breed v. Ruoff, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 142, dismissed 166 N. Y. 612 ; Hannon v. Cobb, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 480. North Dakota. — Clarke v. Olson, 9 N. Dak. 364. West Virginia. — Young v. Improvement Loan, etc., Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512, quoting 2 Am. and Eng. Encyc of Law (2d ed.) 1082. Wisconsin. — • Leahy v. National Bldg., etc., Assoc, 100 Wis. 555, 69 Am. St. Rep. 945. Insolvency Operates as a Modification Bather than Extinguishment of Contract. — Clarke v. Olson, 9 N. Dak. 364. In Breed v. Ruoff, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 142, it was held that where there is a dividend presently due to the borrowing stockholder there is no good reason why he should be com- pelled to pay the full amount of the loan in the first instance. See also Robinson v. Spencer, 72 N. Y. Apn. Div. 493. Compare People v. New York Bldg. Loan Banking Co., 101 N. Y. App. Div. 484, wherein it was held that the rights and liabilities of borrowing stockholders should not be determined until the net assets are ascertained. The fact that an association has gone out of business as a building and loan association furnishes no defense to the borrower against the payment of the loan made to him. Motes v. People's Bldo;.. etc., Assoc, 137 Ala. 369. 3. Settlement by Agreement. — Bowman v. Foster, etc., Hardware Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 592; Main St. Bldg., etc., Co. v. Richter, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 74. 779 17 BUILDING CONTRACTS- BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. Vol.V- 1. BUILDING CONTRACTS. — See note i. 1. 1. In Utah Lumber Co. v. James, 25 Utah 434, the court said : " ' A contract,' says Mr. Lloyd, in his work on the Law of Building and Buildings (section 1), 'is an agreement between two or more persons, for a valuable considera- tion, to do or not to do some particular thing; and when the undertaking refers to construct- ing, erecting, or repairing an edifice or other work or structure, it may be called a building contract.' " BUILDING RESTRICTIONS AND RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS. By J. E. Brady. 3. II. Creation and Nature — 1. Method of Creation — At Law. — See note 2. 4. 2. Whether Restrictive Covenants Run with Land — Burden of covenant. — See notes i, 2. The Benefit of a Covenant. — See note 3. 5. 3. Restrictive Agreements Create Rights in Nature of Easements. — See note 8. 6. III. Extent and Character of Restriction — 1. Buildings — a. Against Erection of Any Structure. — See note 6. 7. b. Styxe, Cost, Material, and Height of Structure. — See note I. 3. 2. Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. House or "part of or projection from " does not prevent the building of a wall. Clark v. Lee, 185 Mass. 223. A Structure Set Dp on Posts, one portion of which is used as a photograph gallery, is a building within the meaning of a covenant not to erect any building. Evans v. Mary A. Riddle Co., (N. J. 1899) 43 Atl. Rep. 894. Not More than One House to Be Erected. — Where the purchaser of a lot of land, subject to a restriction that " not more than one house should be erected thereon," commenced to erect a double tenement house on the plot, one tene- ment being on the ground floor and the other on the floor above, and there being no internal communication between the tenements, each having its own front door in a common en- trance archway, it was held that the building constituted two distinct houses structurally sepa- rated in all respects, and that there was a breach of the restriction. Ilford Park v. Ja- cobs, (1903) 2 Ch. 522, 89 L. T. N. S. 295. And such a restriction is violated by the erec- tion of a block of residential flats having a common public entrance-hall, corridors, lifts, and staircases. Rogers v. Hosegood, (1900) 2 Ch. 388, 83 L. T. N. S. 186. 7. 1. For Restriction as to Cost of Building see Holford v. Acton Urban Dist. Council, (1898) 2 Ch. 240, 78 L. T. N. S. 829. Prohibiting Windows. — A covenant not to place any " lights " overlooking plaintiff's land in buildings " adjoining " same was enforced where the buildings containing the lights were not contiguous to the plaintiff's property, but were set back several yards from the dividing line. Ind v. Hamblin, 81 L. T. N. S. 779, 48 W. R. 238. 583, which was an action for damages for breach of the covenant. 4. li The Burden of a Covenant will not pass with the land in the absence of a privity of estate or tenure between the covenanting par- ties. Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36. A Covenant Not to Sell Intoxicating Liquor on the Granted Premises is a covenant which will run with the land. Spencer v. Stevens, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 112. A Covenant Relating- to the Use and Enjoyment of Land not only at the time of the making of the lease, but for the future also, is a covenant that runs with the land. Wright u. Heidorn, 6 Ohio Dec. 151. 2. A Covenant Restricting the Use of a Lease- hold, which appears in the lease, will run with the land. Wright v. Heidorn, 6 Ohio Dec. 151, 4 Ohio N. P. 124. 3. Rogers v. Hosegood, (1900) 2 Ch. 388, 69 L. J. Ch. 652, 83 L. T. N. S. 186, 48 W. R. 659. Benefit of Covenant. — " If the covenant were one intended to benefit the land, it was consid- ered to be incident to and run with the land, and therefore whoever might become the owner of the land would also become entitled to the benefit of the covenant." Los Angeles Termi- nal Land Co. u. Muir, 136 Cal. 36. 5. 8. A Covenant Against Building Beyond a Certain Height was regarded as creating an ease- ment of light and aid in favor of the cove- nantee's land, in Meigs v. Milligan, 177 Pa. St. 66. See also Chase v. Walker, 167 Mass. 293 ; Brown v. O'Brien, 168 Mass. 484. 6. 6. A Covenant Against the Erection of Any Vol. V. 780 Vol. v. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. 7-8 7. c. Position on Lot or Distance from Street. — Projecting Porches, Windows, Etc. — See note 3. 8. d. Purpose for Which to Be Used. — See note i. See note 2. Covenant for Dwelling Houses of a Certain Cost. — Roberts v. Burke, 15 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) log. Restrictions as to Height of Building. — Where a covenantor agreed not to build a wall then standing 6n his premises any higher, he could not build an entirely new and higher wall just inside the line of the original wall. Chase v. Walker, 167 Mass. 293. A covenant not to erect any building or ob- struction within a certain distance of the street " except a bath house and privy and walls or •fences not exceeding eight feet in height," was enforced and was held to have been violated by the construction of a bath house over eight feet high as an addition to the dwelling of the defendant. Meigs v. Milligan, 177 Pa. St. 66. A Covenant Against the Erection of More than One Building on the " lot hereby conveyed," where the deed conveys two lots, does not pre- vent the erection of a building on each lot. Walker v. Renner, 60 N. J. Eq. 493. Such a covenant is not broken by the con- struction of a building containing separate flats on every floor. Kimber v. Admans, (1900) 1 Ch. 412, 69 L. J. Ch. 296, 82 L. T. N. S. 136, 48 W. R. 322. Such a covenant is infringed by placing a row of flats upon the land representing the burden of the covenant. Rogers v. Hosegood, (1900) 2 Ch. 388, 69 L. J. Ch. 652, 83 L. T. N. S. 186, 48 W. R. 659. A Covenant to Erect Private Dwellings Only is broken by the putting up of a flat house. Skillman v. Smatheurst, 57 N. J. Eq. 1. Or a hotel. Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co.. 62 N. J. Eq. 164, affirmed 63 N. J. Eq. 804. Or by constructing a railroad. Long Eaton Recrea- tion Grounds Co. v. Midland R. Co., 71 L. J. K. B. 74, 85 L. T. N. S. 278, 50 W. R. 120. On the other hand, tenement and apartment houses have been held not to violate an agree- ment to build " dwellings " only. Roth v. Jung, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; Holt v. Fleischman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593. But see Levy v. Schreyer, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 282, reversing 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 227, wherein a building containing three housekeeping apartments was held not to be a private dwelling. A Covenant Against a Tenement House is not violated by the erection of an apartment house. Kitchings v. Brown, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 439 ; White v. Collins T'dg., etc., Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 1. A Covenant to Build a House of Certain Specifications cannot be construed as a covenant not to erect buildings which do not conform to the specifications. Hurley v. Brown, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 480. A Covenant to Permit No Construction on the Ocean Side of Certain Property other than a pier is not illegal, and the covenant being part of a general plan of improvement, the case falls within the " exceptional class of cases discussed by Chief Justice Beasley in Brewer v. Mar- shall, 19 N. J. Eq. 537-" Atlantic City v. At- lantic City SteeJ Pier Co., fc N. J. Eq, 139. ' Covenant Against Use Distinguished from Covenant Against Construction. — ■ Lcmgworth v. Deane, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 461. 7. 2. Distance from Street. — Hooper v. Bro- met, 89 L. T. N. S. 37 ; Skillman v. Smatheurst, 57 N. J. Eq. 1 ; Evans v, Mary A. Riddle Co., (N. J. 1899) 43 Atl. Rep. 894; Hemsley v. Marl- borough Hotel Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 167; Roth v. Jung, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; Holt v. Fleisch- man, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593 ; Levy v. Schreyer, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 227; Evans v. New Auditorium Pier Co., (N. J. 1904) 58 Atl. Rep. 191 ; Meigs v. Milligan, 177 Pa. St. 66. Construction of Word " Adjoining," — A house twenty feet distant from a boundary fence is not " adjoining," within the meaning of a re- striction against the insertion of lights in " any buildings adjoining " the premises adjacent to such boundary fence. Ifid v. Hamblin, 84 L. T. N. S. i68,, reversing 48 W. R. 238, 81 L. T. N. S. 779- A Wall Projecting from a Building does not come within the term " building," as used in a covenant, providing that no building or any parts thereof or projection therefrom shall be built within a stipulated number of feet from a certain line. Clarke v. Lee, 185 Mass. 223. A Covenant in An Agreement Which Does Not in Terms Express the Direction in Which a House Must Face, but -merely provides that only dwell- ing houses of a certain height shall be erected on the lots of the parties to the agreement, does not, by implication, restrict the erection of a dwelling house which does not face the street between the lots of such parties. Gubbins v. Peterson, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 241, affirmed 163 N. Y. 583. 3. Projecting Structures. — Skinner v. Allison, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 47, 8 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 155 ; Levy v. Schreyer, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 227. Where, in a restrictive covenant against build- ing, an exception was made in the case of a bay window, it was held that the fact that an addition built by the covenantor differed from the ordinary bay window in that it rested on the ground did not take the structure without the exception. Keith v. Goldsmith, 194 111. 488. A Projection Will Not Be Restrained where it appears that other grantees have ignored the conditions of the covenant. Hemsley v. Marl- borough Hotel Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 167. §. 1. Allowing Temporary Explorations for Oil is not a violation of a covenant that the land whereon such explorations are being made shall be devoted exclusively as a part of the campus of a university, and that no buildings shall be erected except those devoted to university pur- poses, where the educational institution upon the premises is to be continued and where the general purpose of the original grant will not be defeated, but may be materially advanced in the pecuniary results to be derived from the explorations. Los Angeles University v. Swarth, 107 Fed. Rep. 798, 46 C. C. A. 647. A Covenant to P>« Premises a« a Saloon Only, 78X 8-10 BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. Vol. V. 8. 2. Nuisances. — See note 2. 9. 3. Prohibited Trades or Occupations, — See note i. 10. IV. Enforcement in Equity — 1. General Rule. — See note 3. in a lease, is not broken by ceasing to use for any purpose. McCormick v. Stephany, 57 N. J. Eq. 257. A Covenant Permitting the Erection of a Fier, but restricting the sale of commodities thereon, is broken by giving entertainments on the pier for entrance to which a fee is imposed. At- lantic City v. Atlantic City Steel Pier Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 139. A Covenant Relating Solely to the First Building Erected on Certain Land within twenty years, and providing that such building shall be a private dwelling of brick or stone, not less than three stories in height, planned and adapted for 1 ' the residence of private families, etc., and that a tenement, flat, or apartment house is not such a building, does not prevent any one from using the building in any way he pleases, or from re- moving the building thus erected and erecting upon the premises a building that can be used for any purpose. Kurtz v. Potter, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 262, affirmed 167 N. Y. 586. A Covenant to Erect a Substantial Two-story Dwelling, to cost not less than ^ certain price, cannot be construed as a covenant that nothing but a dwelling house should be maintained on the land, and accordingly the erection of a three-story building costing more than the stip- ulated price, and containing stores on the first floor, and flats or apartments above, will not be restrained. Hurley v. Brown, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 480. The Construction of a Building with Stores Therein is not a breach of a covenant that " no part of said premises shall be so used or occu- pied as injuriously to affect the use, occupation, or value of the adjoining or adjacent premises for residence purposes." Hurley v. Brown, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 619. A Covenant to Use a House as a Private Resi- dence Only is broken by taking lodgers from a nearby school. Hobson v. Tulloch, (1898) 1 Ch. 424, 67 L. J. Ch. 205, 78 L. T. N.' S. 224, 46 W. R. 331. The Erection of a Block of Residential Flats violates a restriction against the erection of any house except such as is " adapted for and used as and for a private residence only." Rogers 0. Hosegood, (1900) 2 Ch. 388, 83 L. T. N. S. 186. The Erection of a Railway Embankment is a breach of a covenant not to erect any building other than a private dwelling house. Long Eaton Recreation Grounds Co. v. Midland R. Co., (1902) 2 K. B. 574, affirming 85 L. T. N. S. 278. A Covenant to Use for Hotel or Club Purposes Only was held to be valid. Los Angeles Termi- nal Land Co. v. Muir, T36 Cal. 36. A Covenant Not to Maintain an Alley running through the premises for " ingress or egress to rear buildings " is not broken by permitting a driveway along the rear of the premises for the delivery of supplies to a hotel standing thereon. Leonard v. Hotel Majestic Co., (Supm. O. Spec. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.1 2'o. In the Absence of an Express Restriction, One Should Not Be Implied. — Holford v. Acton Urban Dist. Council, (1898) 2 Ch. 240, 78 L. T. N. S. 829. 8. 2. The Establishment of a School for Boys was held to violate a covenant not to carry on a business whereby there might be caused any offensive deposit or " disagreeable noise, or nui- sance." Wauton v. Coppard, (1899) 1 Ch. 92, 68 L. J. Ch. 8, 79 L. T. N. S. 467, 47 W. R. 72. The Running of Railroad Trains is a breach of a covenant not to carry on a noisy trade. Long Eaton Recreation Grounds Co. v. Midland R. Co., 85 L. T. N. S. 278, affirmed (1902) 2 K. B. 574- 9. 1. Restrictions Against Particular Trades — ■ A covenant not to use premises for a black- smith shop will be enforced. Wright v. Heidorn, 6 Ohio Dec. 151, 4 Ohio N. P. 124. A restrictive agreement against the sale of liquor is not void as against public policy. Sullivan u. Kohlenberg, 31 Ind. App. 215; Uihlein v. Matthews, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 476, reversed 172 N. Y. 154. A covenant not to use property for hotel pur- poses is not void as against public policy. Wit- tenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583. A covenant not to manufacture certain arti- cles is valid. American Strawboard Co. v. Haldeman Paper Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 619, 54 U. S. App. 416. A Covenant Not to Use Premises for a Saloon is valid and not in restraint of trade. Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 111. 652. A Covenant Against the Erection of " Any Beer House or shop or any hotel of less annual value than fifty pounds " does not apply to an ordinary shop, but merely prohibits the erection of a beer house or beer shop, or of a hotel the rental of which is so low that its principal use is likely to be for the sale of beer rather than for the reception of guests. Formby v. Barker, (1903) 2 Ch. 539, 89 L. T. N. S. 249. Restriction Against "Building" Forbids "Use." — A restriction that no house or shop for the sale of malt or spirituous liquors shall be " built " on the land is violated by the use for such purpose of a house which the purchaser was allowed to build without interference. Webb v. Fagotti, 79 L. T. N. S. 683. 10. 3. Enforcement in Equity. — Ewertsen v. Gerstenberg, 186 111. 349, citing 5 Am. and Enc. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 10. See also the following cases : United States. — American Strawboard Co. v. Haldeman Paper Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 619, 54 U. S. App. 416. Illinois. — Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 111. 652. Indiana. — Sullivan v. Kohlenberg, 31 Ind. App. 215. New Jersey. — Roberts v. Scull, 58 N. J. Eq. 396 ; Bridgewater -u. Ocean City R. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 476. New York. — Spencer v. Stevens, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 112; Uihlein v. Matthews, 57 N. Y, App. Div. 476, reversed 172 N. Y. 154, 782 Vol. V. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. 11-15 11. Restriction Presumed to Enter into Consideration. — See note I. 2. Burden of Proof. — See note 2. 12. 3. Purpose of Restriction Controlling — a. Generally. — See note i. 13. b. How Purpose Determined. — See note i. 4. Restrictions Pursuant to General Plan. — See note 7. 14. See. note 1. 5. Restrictions in Absence of General Plan. — See notes 2, 3. 15. 7. Whether Negative Agreements Only Enforced, — See note 3. 8. Discretion of Court — Equitable Defenses — a. Generally. — See notes 4, 5. Pennsylvania.' — Roberts v. Burke, 15 Montg. tended. — The court will not infer that a build- Co. Rep. (Pa.) 109. Vermont. — ■ Trudeau v. Field, 69 Vt. 446. The Recording of a Deed containing a restrictive covenant as to the property retained by the grantor is constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser. Holt v. Fleischman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593. 11. 1. Roberts v. Scull, 58 N. J. Eq. 396. 2. Roberts v. Scull, 58 N. J. Eq. 396 ; Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 164. Restrictions Construed Against Covenantee, — Covenants are to be construed most strongly against the covenantee, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff clearly and satisfactorily to establish the breach. Levy v. Schreyer, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 227. 12. 1. Restriction Must Be for Benefit of Party Enforcing It. — Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 164; Roberts v. Scull, 58 N. J. Eq. 396 ; Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36. Bestriction Imposed for Personal Benefit of Grantor, — Where the right acquired is per- sonal merely it is enforceable only as between the parties. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586; Hutchison v. Thomas, 190 Pa. St. 242; Krekeler v. Aulbach, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 591, affirmed 169 N. Y. 372; Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36. 13. 1. How Purpose Determined. — Los An- geles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36; Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 167; Krekeler v. Aulbach, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 591, affirmed 169 N. Y. 372; Spencer v. Stevens, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 112; Louisville, etc.J R. Co. v. Webster, 106 Tenn. 586. A Trivial Breach of a Trivial Restriction does not prevent a purchaser from maintaining a suit as to a breach of a substantial restriction by an adjoining owner. Hooper v. Bromet, 89 L. T. N. S. 37- 7. General Plan. — Nalder, etc., Brewery Co. v. Harman, 83 L. T. N. S. 257; Hooper v. Bromet, 89 L. T. N. S. 37 ; Rowell v. Satchell, (1903) 2 Ch. 212, 89 L. T. N. S. 267; Hills v. Metzenroth, 173 Mass. 423. See also Bridge- water v. Ocean City R. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 276. 14. 1. Nalder, etc., Brewery Co. v. Harman, 83 L. T. N. S. 257, affirming 64 J. P- 358; Bridgewater v. Ocean City R.' Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 276, affirmed 63 N. J. Eq. 798. Where There Is a General Plan the covenant can be enforced only by the owner of property included within the plan. Hemsley v. Marlbor- ough Hotel Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 167. Presumption tnat Building Scheme Was In- ing scheme was intended where the coritract leaves undefined the property to be bound by the conditions which are to apply, and does not bind the vendor to observe the conditions in the meantime as to property remaining unsold, especially where the vendor has the right to modify the conditions as to the unsold part. Osborne v. Bradley, (1903) 2 Ch. 446, 89 L. T. N. S. n. Stipulation Not Formulated at Date of Original Sale. — Where an estate is sold in parcels at successive sales and subject to restrictive stipu- lations contained in a building scheme, a pur- chaser at a prior sale cannot enforce against a purchaser at a subsequent sale stipulations in respect of property subsequently sold which were not formulated or promulgated at the date of the contract under which he claims. Rowell v. Satchell, (1903) 2 Ch. 212, 89 L. T. N. S. ' 267. Effect of Conveyance Departing from Scheme of Which Purchaser Has Notice. — A purchaser with notice of a building scheme is bound by restric- tions of which he has notice, and accidental departures in the form of the conveyance, pur- porting to relieve him from observance of the restrictions, are ineffective, and, conversely, are no bar to his title to sue. Rowell v. Satchell, (1903) 2 Ch. 212, 89 L. T. N. S. 267. 2. Restrictions on Land Sold in Behalf of Land Retained. — Rogers v. Hosegood, 69 L. J. Ch. 59, 81 L. T. N. S. 515; Osborne v. Bradley, (1903) 2 Ch. 446, 89 L. T. N. S. 11. See also Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 164. 3. Restrictions on Land Retained in Behalf of Land Sold. — Holt v. Fleischman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593. Where No Restriction Was Placed on the Land Retained in Behalf of That Sold, and where, also, the transactions are not part of a general plan, the owner of the lot first sold cannot enforce against one who afterwards purchased an ad- joining lot a restriction placed on such ad- joining lot in favor of the common grantor. Roberts v. Scull, 58 N. J. Eq. 396 ; Hemsley v. Marlborough Hotel Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 164. 15. 3, Positive Act Enforced. — Holt v. Fleischman, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 593. 4. "Where There Are Negative Covenants the court has, speaking generally, no discretion to consider the balance of convenience or mat- ters of that nature, but is bound to give effect to the contract between the parties, unless the plaintiff seeking to enforce the covenant has, by his own misconduct, delay, laches, or the like, disentitled himself to sue; that is to say, 783 16-20 B UILDING RES TRIC TIONS — B URDEN. Vol. V. 16. b. Effect of Laches, Acquiescence, or Change of Circum- stances — The Conduct of the Plaintiff, Suoh as Acquiescence and Laches. — See note I. After Right Has Vested in Vendee, Vendor's Action Cannot Divest It. — See note 2. 17. Effect of Change of Circumstances. — See note 2. d. Plaintiff Need Not Show Damage. — See note 7. 1 8. BULK. — See note 2. BULL. — See note 3. SO. BURDEN. — See note 1. has raised against himself a personal equity.'' Osborne v. Bradley, (1903) 2 Ch. 446, 89 L. T. N. S. 11. 15. 5. Circumstances and Conduct of Parties Considered. — Ewertsen v. Gerstenberg, 186 111. 349- 16. 1. laches, Acquiescence, Etc, — See also Osborne v. Bradley, (1903) 2 Ch. 446, 89 L. T. N. S. 11. The fact that a covenantor entered a saloon and drank liquor there does not amount to an acquiescence in a breach of the covenant not to maintain such saloon. Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 111. 652. A long-continued disregard of a restrictive covenant on the part of a covenantee will con- stitute a waiver or release of the covenant. Hepworth v. Pickles, (1900) 1 Ch. 108, 69 L. J. Ch. 55, 81 L. T. N. S. 818, 48 W. R. 184. 2. Subsequent Deed by Vendor. — Where a vendor had conveyed property to the plaintiff by a deed containing a restrictive covenant, the covenant was not annulled by a subsequent quit- claim deed of a larger piece of property, in- cluding the land conveyed by the first deed, and given for the purpose of quieting the plain- tiff's title. Uihlein v. Matthews, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 476, reversed 172 N. Y. 154. 17. 2. Change of Circumstances. — Ewertsen v. Gerstenberg, 186 111. 349; Roth v. Jung, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 1 ; Deeves v. Constable, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 352; Leonard v. Hotel Majestic Co., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 229. Change of circumstance is not a defense unless it appears that the change has been occasioned through some act of the covenantee or those claiming through him. Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 III. 652. Change in Neighborhood Not Defeating Right. — " The right of a person to enforce a restric- tive covenant by injunction could not be de- feated by mere change in the character of the neighborhood, unless there was an equity against him arising from his acts or conduct in sanctioning or knowingly permitting such change as to render it unjust for him to seek relief by injunction." Osborne v. Bradley, (1903) 2 Ch. 446, 89 L. T. N. S. 11. 7. Damage Need Not Be Proved. — Star Brew- ery Co. v. Primas, 163 111. 652; Walker v. Mc- Nulty, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 701. Nominal Damages. — Judgment had been ren- dered for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had suffered no damage by the breach of covenant. The judgment was reversed, the court holding that the violation of the covenant entitled the plaintiff to nominal damages at least. Skinner v. Allison, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 47, 8 N. Y. Annot. Cas. 155. 18. 2. Wills. — By the words "the Jmlfc of my estate " it is clear the testator referred to his estate both real and personal. Cole v. Proctor, (Tenn. Ch. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 674. 3. Bulls Not Included in Mortgage of Steers. — " Bulls and cows are not covered by a mort- gage which undertakes to include only one and two year old steers." Wyman v. Herard, 9 Okla. 87. 20. 1. Burthen — Taxation. — "In each in- stance it was recited in the deed given to the purchaser that the conveyance of the city, was made and the rights of the purchaser there- under were conferred 'subject only to such assessments and Jnirthens as shall be in com- mon with other lot holders in the said city.' The term ' assessment ' is often used as a synonym of ' taxes.' Indeed, one of the defini- tions of this term given by Webster is ' a tax.' But even if this word, as used in the deed, does not necessarily refer to taxation, the word Jmrthen, which is also therein employed, is certainly sufficiently comprehensive to include municipal taxes. Taken all together, the lan- guage adopted is clearly broad enough to em- brace every Jrurden then existing or which might thereafter be lawfully imposed upon other landowners in the city." Wells v. Savan- nah, 181 U. S. 541, affirming 107 Ga. 1. 784 BURDEN OF PROOF. By W. B. Robinson. 22. II. MEANING OF THE TERM — Term Used in Two Senaei — The Two Uses Stated. — See note i . illustration. — See note 2. 23. When a Case Is Closed and Submitted. — See note I . III. Fundamental Rule — Onus on Affirmative. — See note 4. 24. Rule Founded in Convenience. — See note I. IV. Determining Who Holds the Affirmative — 1. General Tests. — See note 3. 25. 2. The Pleadings — a. Record Showing the Issue. — See note 3. 22. 1. Two Senses of Phrase " Burden of Proof." — Egbers v. Egbers, 177 111. 82, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 21 [22]. 2. See Field v. French, 80 111. App. 78, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 22. 23. 1. Quirk v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 257, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 21 [23], and adopting the language of the text. 4. Burden of Proof on Affirmative. — Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Beck, 36 C. C. A. 467, 94 Fed. Rep. 751 ; Land Mortg. Invest. Agency Co. v. Preston, 119 Ala. 290; Mott v. Baxter, 29 Colo. 418, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 23 ; Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Com- mercial Nat. Bank, 99 111. App. 114, 199 111. 151, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 23; Hudson v. Miller, 97 111. App. 74; Nash v. Cooney, 108 111. App. 211 ; Chicago Transit Co. v. Campbell, no 111. App. 366; Mississinewa Min. Co. v. Andrews, 22 Ind. App. 528, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 23; Piper v. Matkins, 8 Kan. App. 215, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 21—26; Kuenzel v. Stevens, 155 Mo. 280 ; Turner v. Wells, 64 N. J. L. 269 ; Hurd v. Wing, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 595 ; Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. Car. 13. 24. 1. A Rule of Convenience. — See Keller v. Strauss, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 35 Misc. (N. Y.) 36, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of 'Law (2d ed.) 24. 8. Wetherell v. Hollister, 73 Conn. 622, cit- ing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 24; Funk v. Procter, no Ky. 290 ; Chaplin, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Nelson County, 77 S. W. Rep. 377, 25 Ky. L. Rep. n 54; Walling v. Eggers, 78 S. W. Rep. 428, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1563 ; Ashland, etc., R. Co. v. Hoffman, 82 S. W. Rep. 566, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 778 ; Gile v. Sawtelle, 94 Me. 46 ; Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 250. See also Dieterle v. Bekin, 143 Cal. 683. 25. 3. Under the General Issue or a General Denial. — McGhee v. Cashin, 130 Ala. 568; Mott v. Baxter, 29 Colo. 418; Nash v. Cooney, 108 111. App. 211; Piper v. Matkins, 8 Kan. App. 215, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.)" 21-26; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Os- borne, (Ky. 1899) 51 S. W. Rep. 306; Louis- ville, etc., R. Co. v. McClain, 66 S. W. Rep. I Supp. E. of L.— 50 785 391, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1878; Chamberlain Banking House v. Woolsey, 60 Neb. 516; Connolly v. Clark, (N. Y. City Ct. Gen. T.) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 415. Allegation of Facts in Avoidance. — Gambling Debt, in an action for money advanced. Hall v. Barrett, 93 111. App. 642. Fraudulent Proof of Loss, in an action on an insurance policy. Schallman v. Royal Ins. Co., 94 111. App. 364. A Gift, in an action for money lent. Zeok v. Hertz, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 512. Release, in an action by the mortgagee for conversion. Knoche v. Whiteman, 86 Mo. App. 568. Suicide, in defense to an action on an insur- ance policy. Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Beck, 36 C. C. A. 467, 94 Fed. Rep. 751 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Weise, 80 111. App. 499, reversed 182 111. 496. Adverse Possession, in an action of eject- ment. Walling v. Eggers, 78 S. W. Rep. 428, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1563. A Plea of Right to Apply Funds on other debts, in an action by the plaintiff to cancel a promissory note alleging the sale of securities placed to meet the note. Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. Car. 13. Agency, in defense to an action to cancel a mortgage on the ground that the loan was never received. Land Mortg. Invest. Agency Co. v. Preston, 119 Ala. 290. Trust Account, in an action for goods sold and delivered. Mitchell v. Whitlock, 121 N. Car. 166. Allegation Fraudulently Made, in an action for a penalty under a statute. Davis v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 12 Tex. Civ. App. 427. New Contract, in an action in a written con- tract for goods delivered. Gernert Bros. Lum- ber Co. v. Rapier, (Ky. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 261. Default on Prior Bond, in an action against sureties on a county treasurer's bond. Skip- with v. Hurt, (Tex. Civ. App. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. 192. Agreement to Accept Shares of Stock, where the plaintiff sued for payment of *. transfer and the defendant alleged an agreement to take pay in stock. Wright v. Stewart, 19 Wash. 179. 27-29 BURDEN OF PROOF. Vol. V. 27. c. General Denial and Affirmative Answer. — See note i. d. Failure to Form ax Issue. — See note 2. 28. 3. Proving a Negative — Form of Allegations of No Consequence. — See note 2. Meaning of " Affirmative of the Issue." — See note 3. 29. Negative Matter in Affirmative Actions. — See note X. Contract of Guaranty, on a contract for the use of a field, where the defendant set up that the plaintiff guaranteed the field to yield a designated amount. Gile v. Sawrelle, 94 Me. 46. Debt Not Bona Fide, in an action of re- plevin for certain chattels. Coates v. Miller, 99 111. App. 227. Recoupment or Counterclaim. — Warranty of Quality and Breach, in an action for the price of goods sold and delivered. Avery v. Burrall, 118 Mich. 676, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 26 ; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Forsyth, 123 Mich. 628, citing 5 Am. and Eng. En cyc. of Law (2d ed.) 26. Sawing Not Carefully Done, in an action on a contract to manufacture shingles. Truax v. Heartt, 135 Mich. 150, 10 Detroit Leg. X. 709. Breach of a Special Agreement , in an action by the plaintiff on a quantum meruit for ser- vices rendered the defendant Blum v. Ver- steeg Grant Shoe Co., 77 Mo. App. 567. Agreement of an Agent to Pay Certain Lapsed Policies, in an action by the agent to recover a deposit. Sun L. Ins. Co. v. Bevan, (Ky. 1897) 43 S. W. Rep. 427. Counterclaim for Breach of Contract, — Where the defendant pleads a counterclaim, the burden is on him the same as if he had brought an action against the plaintiff for the breach of contract set up in the counterclaim. Liberty Wall Paper Co. v. Stover Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 178 N. Y. 219. Set-off. — Account Against Plaintiff, in an ac- tion for goods sold and delivered. O'Xeal v. Curry, 134 Ala. 216. Replication to Flea. — Release of Liens Prior to Loss, in an action on an insurance policy, the defendant having pleaded the giving of a mort- gage in violation of the terms of the policy. Home F. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 59 Xeb. 349. Former Judgment Set Aside on Appeal, in an action for personal injuries, where the defend- ant pleaded a prior judgment. Meeh v. Mis- souri Pac. R. Co., 61 Kan. 630. Statute Invalid, in an action for failure to deliver certain cattle, the defendant having pleaded that quarantine statutes prevented de- livery. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Smith, 20 Tex. Dv. App. 451. Waiver, in an action on an insurance policy, where the defendant pleaded a forfeiture. Ala- bama State Mut. Assur. Co. v. Long Clothing, etc., Co., 123 Ala. 667. Cross-complaint. — The allegations of a cross- complaint put upon the defendant the burden of proof the same as if he had instituted an orig- inal action to obtain the relief prayed for in the cross-complaint. Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Butterfield Min., etc., Co., 19 Utah 453. 27. 1. Allowing General Denial and Affirma- tive Answers at the same time does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof. McGhee v. Cashin, 130 Ala. 568, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 27. See also Chaplin, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Xelson County, 77 786 S. W. Rep. 377, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1154; Balmford v. Grand Lodge, etc., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 1. 2. Preoeeding to Trial Without Issue.— See March-Davis Cycle Mfg. Co. v. Strobridge Lithographing Co., 79 111. App. 687, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 27. 28. 2. Where Proof ef Claim Involves a Nega- tive. — Turner v. Wells, 4 N. J. L. 269, cit- ing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (ed ed.; 28 ; Clifton v . Weston, 54 W. Va. 250, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law Od ed.) 28. 3. Substance and Not Form Material. — See Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 260. The General Eule Judicially Stated. — See Turner v. Wells, 64 N. J. L. 269. 29. 1. See Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 260. Actions Necessitating Proof of Negative Matter — Illustrations. — Want of probable cause ; in an action for malicious prosecution. Ambs v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 114 Fed. Rep. 317; Spitzer v. Friedlander, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 556; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wallin, 71 Ark. 422; Herbener v. Crossan, 4 Penn. (Del.) 43 ; Skala v. Rus, 60 III. App. 479 ; Tumalty v. Parker, 100 III. App. 382; Richards v. Jewett, 118 Iowa 629 ; Monroe v. H. Weston Lumber Co., 50 La. Ann. 142 ; Matlick v. Crump, 62 Mo. App. 21, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 712; Merchant v. Pielke, 10 N. Dak. 48 ; Pownall v. Lancaster, etc., Turn- pike Co., 16 Lane. L. Rev. 411; Boush v. Fi- delity, etc., Co., 100 Va. 73s ; Porter v. Mack, 50 W. Va. 581; Cullen v. Hanisch, 114 Wis. 24 ; Malcolm v. Perth Mut. F. Ins. Co., 29 Ont. 717, affirming 29 Ont. 406. Failure to drill an oil well ; in an action on a lease which provided that the lessor should be entitled to rent if no oil well was put down by the lessee. Mississinewa Min. Co. v. An- drews, 22 Ind. App. 528, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 28-31. The non-existence of liens ; in an action on a building contract, where it was stipulated that final payment was to be made upon the con- tractor's providing releases of all liens growing out of the contract. Turner v. Wells, 64 X. J. L. 269. That no money was due to the defendant ; in an action to recover money paid under mistake, upon false representations. Pacaud v. Reg., 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 637. Officers not legally elected ; in an action by the corporation to recover money collected by the defendants as officers. Carmel Xatural Gas, etc., Co. v. Small, 150 Ind. 431. That a check was not given for value re- ceived; in an action to recover the amount of a check given to the defendant Larraway v. Harvey, 14 Quebec Super. Ct. 97. Absence of notice; in an action claiming un- der an attachment levied before a prior deed was recorded. L.. etc.. Blum Land Co. v. Har- bin. (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 33 S. W. Rep. 153. Land in dispute not a part of the street; Vol. V. BURDEN OF PROOF. 30 39 30. See note I. Negative Matter in Affirmative Defenses. — See note 2. V. Shifting the Burden of Pboof — l. Generally — True Burden Does Not Shift. — See note 4. 31. Effect of Establishing Prima Facie Case. — See note I. 33. 3. In Criminal Cases. — See note 2. 34. Reason — Admissions Not Effective. — See note I. 37. Distinction — Going Forward. — See note 2. 39. VI. Going Forward with Evidence — 1. Generally. — See note 2. in an action to enjoin an easement by the pub- he therein. Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 250. Absence of consent need not be proved where the allegation of the negative was held not to be necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover. In an action to recover certain money depos- ited by the plaintiff for the defendant under an agreement that the deposit was not to be drawn without the plaintiff's consent, and the plaintiff alleged that the same had been with- drawn without his consent, the court declared, notwithstanding the negative allegation, that the burden of showing consent was on the defend- ant. Dirks v. California Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 136 Cal. 84. 30. 1. See Clifton v. Weston, 54 W. Va. 260. 2. When Defendant Has Burden of Proving Negative — Illustrations. — No authority to in- dorse ; in an action on a check. Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 99 111. App. 114, 199 111. 151, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. op Law (2d ed.) 29-31. Where the defendant in an action on an in- surance policy alleges that statements in the application were untrue. Mutual Reserve Fund Assoc, v. Powell, 79 111. App. 482. Damage could not have been caused other- wise; defense of sea peril in an action for goods found to have been damaged at the end of the voyage. The Dunbritton, 38 U. S. App. 369, 73 Fed. Rep. 352. Court without jurisdiction ; in an action on a promissory note. Pyron v. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060. In an action on four promissory notes, the making of the notes was admitted, and it was alleged by way of a defense that there was a tender of payment on condition of surrender- ing certain collateral deposited as security for the payment of the notes, and for no other pur- pose. It was held that the allegation " and for no other purpose " put upon the defendant the burden of proving a negative. Stokes v. Stokes, 155 N. Y. 581, affirmed (N. Y. Super. Ct. Gen. T.) n Misc. (N. Y.) 716. 4. True Burden Does Not Shift. — Michael v. Marshall, 201 111. 76, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 30; Piper v. Matkins, ■8 Kan. App. 215; Rupp v. Sarpy County, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1042; Wiley v. Bondy, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 658. 31. 1. Prima Facie Case Dobb Not Shift Burden — To Similar Effect. — Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Beck, 36 C. C. A. 467, 94 Fed- Rep- 75 1 ; Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 99 111. App. 114, 199 HI. 151. citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 29-31 ; Field v. French, 80 111. App. 78; Chaplin, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Nelson County, 77 S. W. Rep. 377, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1154; Laubheimer v. Naill, 88 Md. 174; Liberty Ins. Co. v. Central Vermont R. Co., 19 N. Y. App. Div. 509; Wiley v. Bondy, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 658. 33. 2. Burden Never Shifts in Criminal Cases. — Davis v. State, 54 Neb. 177; Snider v. State, 56 Neb. 309 ; Knights v. State, 58 Neb. 225 ; Brown v. State, 62 N. J. L. 666. See also State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 101 Am. St. Rep. 1006. Self-defense. — See State v. Ballou, 20 R. I. 607. See also People v. Eposki, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 91. Alibi. — See People v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377, disapproving an instruction to the effect that " when satisfactorily proven " an alibi is a good defense in law ; State v. McClellan, 23 Mont. 532, 75 Am. St. Rep. 558 ; Peyton v. State, 54 Neb. 188; State v. Thornton, 10 S. Dak. 349. 34. 1. Other Authorities — Florida. — Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459. Iowa. — State v. Thiele, 119 Iowa 659. Kansas. — State v. Grinstead, 10 Kan. App. 78. Qklaiioma. — Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714. Pennsylvania. — Com. v. Wireback, 190 Pa. St. 138, 70 Am. St. Rep. 625; Com. v. Heidler, 191 Pa. St. 375; Com. v. Kilpatrick, 204 Pa. St. 218; Com. v. Gentry, 5 Pa. Dist. 703. South Carolina. — State v. McDaniel, 68 S. Car. 304, 102 Am. St. Rep. 661. Washington. — State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 101 Am. St. Rep. 1006. W est Virginia. — State v. Manns, 48 W. Va. 480. Wyoming. — Gustavenson v. State, 10 Wyo. 300. St. 2. Similar Views Have Been Expressed. — Self-defense ; in a prosecution for an assault with intent to murder, Hendricks v. State, 122 Ala. 42 ; or in a prosecution for murder, Lewis" v. State, 120 Ala. 339; Foster v. Territory, (Ariz. 1899) 56 Pac. Rep. 738; Carr v. State, 11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 353, 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 43; or in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon, State v. Hatfield, 48 W. Va. 561. Drunkenness of Accused; in a prosecution for murder. State v. Corrivau, 93 Minn. 38. Delirium Tremens; in a prosecution for lar- ceny. State v. Kavanaugh, 4 Penn. (Del.) 131. Imbecility ; in a prosecution for homicide. State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 152. Alibi ; in a prosecution for larceny, Wilburn v. Territory, 10 N. Mex. 402; or in a prosecu- tion for assault with intent to murder, Saeng v. State. (Tex. Crim. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 316; or in a trial for murder. Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 726. 39. 2. Necessity of Going Forward. — See Gile v. Lawtelle, 94 Me. 46. 787 39-43 BURDEN OF PROOF— BUREAU. Vol. V. 39. 3. After a Prima Facie Ca»t — a. General Effect of Prima Facie CASE — Burden Shifted. — See note 5. b. What Constitutes a Prima Facie Case — (i) In General. — See note 6. 40. (2) Effect of Presumptions. — See notes 2, 3. To Shift Burden of Proof. — See note 6. 41. See note 1. (3) Effect of Peculiar Knowledge. — See note 2. 42. Negative Claims. — See note I . (4) Effect of Admissions. — See note 2. 43. c. REPELLING PRIMA FACIE CASE — May Avail Himself of Evidence Intro- duced by Adversary. — See note I. [BUREAU. — See note \a.\ " Weight of Evidence." — See Supreme Lodge, etc., u. Beck, 36 C. C. A. 467, 94 Fed. Rep. 751, affirmed 181 U. S. 49. 39. 5. See Herriman Irrigation Co. v. But- terfield Min., etc., Co., 19 Utah 453. 6. Prima Facie Case. — The Warren Adams, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 413 ; Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Beck, 36 C. C. A. 467, 94 Fed. Rep. 751 ; Matter of Williams, 128 Cal. 552, 79 Am. St. Rep. 67; Hunter v. Sanders, 113 Ga. 140; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Blumenthal, 160 111. 40, affirming 57 111. App. 538 ; Supreme Tent, etc., v. Stensland, 105 111. App. 267, affirmed 206 111. 124; Myers v. Hinds, no Mich. 300, 64 Am. St. Rep. 345 ; Rivers v. Obear, etc., Glass Co., 81 Mo. App. 374; Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. Car. 13 ; Mclntyre v. Ajax Min. Co., 20 Utah 323. See also Parry -o. Squair, 79 111. App. 324. 40. 2. Presumptions Assisting to Make Prima Facie Case. — Of sanity ; the burden being to establish a will, Egbers v. Egbers, 177 111. 82; the burden being to establish guilt, State v. Cole, 2 Penn. (Del.) 344; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459 ; Snider v. State, 56 Neb. 309 ; State v. Clark, 34 Wash. 485, 101 Am. St. Rep. 1006. Death by accident; the defense being suicide, Stephenson v. Banker's L. Assoc, 108 Iowa 637 ; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Weise, 80 111. App. 499, reversed 182 111. 496; Supreme Council, etc., v. Brashears, 89 Md. 624, 73 Am. St. Rep. 244. Of malice from the fact of the killing; the burden being to establish a charge of murder. State v. Brinte, 4 Penn. (Del.) 551. That a person intends the natural conse- quences of his act. Wells v. Territory, 14 Okla. 436. That a letter reached its destination ; the burden being to show notice, Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Wilkins Mfg. Co., 181 111. 582; Railway Officials, etc., Assoc, v. Beddow, 112 Ky. 184; Bloom v. Wanner, 77 S. W. Rep. 930, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1646; McDermott v. Jackson, 97 Wis. 64. 3. Presumption Assisting to Repel Prima Facie Case. — That a surrender and cancellation of a note is a payment of the debt. Chamberlain Banking House v. Woolsey, 60 Neb. 516. 6. Burden of Establishing Not Changed by Pre- sumption. — Wiley v. Bondy, (Supm. Ct. App. TO 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 658. 788 41. 1. Presumption Shifts Duty of Going For- ward. — Chamberlain Banking House v. Wool- sey, 60 Neb. 516. See also Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Weise, 80 111. App. 499, reversed 182 111. 496; Kelly v. Forty-second St., etc., R. Co., 37 N. Y. App. Div. soo. 2. Peculiar Knowledge of Adversary Discharges Duty of Going Forward Pro Tanto. — Spaulding v. Coeur D'Alene R., etc., Co., 5 Idaho 533, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 41 ; Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Calloway, (Ky. 1896) 38 S. W. Rep. 430 ; Funk v. Procter, no Ky. 290; Nunez v. Bayhi, 52 La. Ann. 1 7 19; Mitchell v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 124 N. Car. 242, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 41 ; Hinkle v. Southern R. Co., 126 N. Car. 938, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 41; Cook v. Guirkin, ng N. Car. 13 ; State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85. See also Turner v. Wells, 64 N. J. L. 269. But see Mclntyre v. Ajax Min. Co., 20 Utah 323. 42. 1. Negative Claims Provable Only by Op- posite Party. — Bastrop State Bank v. Levy, 106 La. 586; State v. Miller, 182 Mo. 370. See also Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. Car. 13; Mclntyre v. Ajax Min. Co., 20 Utah 323. Sale Without License. — Liggett v. People, 26 Colo. 364 ; State v. Goff, 10 Kan. App. 286 ; Com. v. Read Phosphate Co., 113 Ky. 37, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 42; Orme v. Com., (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 195 ; Scott v. Dewey, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 396; Com. v. Regan, 182 Mass. 22. See also Chandler v. Smith, 70 111. App. 658. And see the title In- toxicating Liquors, 330. 5. et seq. 2. Admissions.— Knoche v. Whiteman, 86 Mo. App. 568; Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. Car. 13; Jacoby v. North British, etc., Ins. Co., 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 366. See also Rupp v. Sarpy County, (Neb. 1904) 98 N. W. Rep. 1042. 43. 1. Annual Cases. — State v. Manns, 48 W. Va. 480. Civil Cases. — See Supreme Lodge, etc., v. Beck, 36 C C. A. 467, 94 Fed. Rep. 751, affirmed 181 U. S. 49. la. Gift Causa Mortis. — A bureau is an article of household furniture used for do- mestic purposes and not generally for securing valuable papers as a life insurance policy, therefore a gift causa mortis of a bureau will not carry a policy contained therein. Newman v. Bost, 122 N. Car. 531. BURGLARY. By M. G. Beaman. 44. I. Definition and Nature of the Offense — Definition — At common Law. — See note i. 45. II. Elements of the Offense — 1. Breaking — a. Actual Break- ing. — See note 3. 46. See note 1. 4§. b. Constructive Breaking. — See note 1. 49. c. Breaking Out — At common Law. — See note 1. 50. 2. Entry. — See note 3. 44. 1. Other Expositions. — States. Fisher, i Perm. (Del.) 303; Claiborne v. State, (Term. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 352; State v. Petit, 32 Wash. 129. 45. 3. Entrance Through Open Door or Win- dow. — State v. Bates, 182 Mo. 70 ; Duke v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 3. See also Fields v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 309. Removal of Props from Door. — State v. Powell, 61 Kan. 81. Statutory Offense — Breaking Not Essential. — People v. Brittain, 142 Cal. 8, 100 Am. St. Rep. 95- Most Be Opening Made by Force. — It is not burglary to tear wooden slats off a window and to remove putty and tacks from a pane of glass, if the glass is not removed. Minter v. State, 71 Ark. 178, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 45. See also Gaddie v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 162. 46. 1. Injury to Building Not Essential to Constitute Breaking. — State v. Fisher, 1 Penn. (Del.) 303 ; State v. Moon, 62 Kan. 801, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 45, 46; State v. Peebles, 178 Mo. 475; People v. Gartland, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 534; Wagner v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 372; Hedrick v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 532. Lifting Latch. — State v. Snow, 3 Penn. (Del.) 259 ; State Rep. 824 ; Willis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 829; Odell v. State, (Tex. Crim 1903) 71 S. W. Rep. 971 ; Davis v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 919; Archi- bald v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 189; Bartley v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 83 S.' W. Rep. 190. Possession of Part and Giving Information as to Rest Sufficient to Convict. — Binyon v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 56 S. W. Rep. 339. Possession Must Be Unexplained to Warrant In- ference of Quilt. — State v. Gillespie, 62 Kan. 469, 84 Am. St. Rep. 411. 62. 1. Indicatory Evidence on Collateral Points. — McCormick v. State, (Ala. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 377; People v. Boxer, 137 Cal. 562; State v. Powell, 61 Kan. 81 ; State v. Woods, 137 Mo. 6; State v. Tucker, 36 Oregon 291; Lamater v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 249 ; Hender- son v. Com., 98 Va. 794; Branch v. Com., 100 Va. 837. Onus of Explanation Cast on Accused. — State v. Wilson, 137 Mo. 592; State v. Blue, 136 Mo. 41 ; Carano v. State, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 93. Possession Must Be Recent. — Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509 ; Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649 ; State v. Belcher, 136 Mo. 135 (holding that the lapse of four months was too long). See also Knight v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 88. Possession Must Be Personal and Exclusive. — Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509 ; State v. Bel- cher, 136 Mo. 135; Torres v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 828. Contra, People v. Barker, 144 Cal. 705. Finding the defendant in close juxtaposition to the goods has been held to be enough. Perry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 513. Possession Must Be Actual, — Simmons v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 74 S. W. Rep. 762. Failure to Trace Stolen Goods to Accused. — If it appears reasonably certain that the de- fendant placed the goods where they were found, it is not necessary to prove further the possession. McDaniel v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1896) 37 S. W. Rep. 324. Evidence of Possession of Stolen Goods Admissible. — Goods found in possession of one jointly in- dicted with the defendants are properly received in evidence, if identified as taken at the same time as the goods sold by the defendants, and if all were seen together before and after the burglary. State v. Wrand, 108 Iowa 73. But the goods must.be identified. Brantley v. State, 115 Ga. 229. Evidence Explanatory of Possession of Property Admissible. — King v. State, 99 Ga. 686, 59 Am. St. Rep. 251. Explanation of Possession. — If the jurors have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, caused by his explanation of possession, they should acquit him. Hale v. State, 122 Ala. 85; People v. Lang, 142 Cal. 482 ; Alvia v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 424 ; Lovelace v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 756; McCoy v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 46. A charge that if the jurors believed that the defendant borrowed the property found in his' possession, they should not consider such pos- session as an inculpatory circumstance, is suffi- ciently favorable to the defendant. Riding v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 452. The defendant need not necessarily show an honest and fair possession. State v. Brady, 121 Iowa 561. Evidence of Possession of Burglar's Tools. — Burglar's tools found on a farm after a bur- glary are admissible in evidence where it ap- pears that the defendant was the only person living on the farm. People v. Gregory, 130 Mich. 522. It is immaterial as bearing on the admissi- bility that the tools are not of a kind exclusively used for criminal purposes. State v. Wayne, 62 Kan. 636. It is also immaterial that the possession of burglar's tools is in itself a separate crime. Williams v. People, 196 111. 173. On- an indictment for burglariously entering a hotel, proof that keys of other hotels were found in the possession of the defendant, one of them fitting the door of a room entered by him, is admissible. Bruen v. People, 206 111. 417. Breaking and Entry Must Be Proved. — Lester v. State, 106 Ga. 371 ; Strickland v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 689. Possession of One Defendant. — Evidence is , ad- missible against one defendant to identify prop- erty taken from a burglarized house and found in the possession of another defendant. Terry v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 628. See also People v. Wilson, 133 Mich. 517. 792 Vol. V. BURGLARY. 65-68 65. Proof of Time. — See note I . Hour of the Night. — See note 2. 66. Evidence of Intent. — See notes I, 2. 67. Evidence of Another Offense. — See notes 1,2. See generally the title Proof of Other Crimes. Proof of Breaking and Entering. — See note 4. 68. Evidence of Conspiracy. — See note I. Sufficiency of Evidence. — See notes 2, 3. Goods Found in Possession of Another, — Where the goods are found in the possession of one who could not have obtained them save from the defendant, this may be shown by the state. Riding v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 452. See also Mass v. State, (Tex., Crim. 1904) 81 S. ,W. Rep. 46. Possession of Chloroform. — Where a burglary was committed by the aid of chloroform, evi- dence that chloroform was found shortly after at the defendant's house is admissible. Miller v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) 50 S. W. Rep. 704. 65. 1. Proof of Time. — Leisenberg v. State, 60 Neb. 628 ; State v. Gray, 23 Nev. 301 ; State v. Miller, 24 Utah 312. Sufficiency of Proof. — Where it was shown that the property taken was in the building at nightfall, and was not there shortly after day- light the next morning, and people lived near at hand, it was held that the taking in the night-time was sufficiently proved. People v. Tracy, 121 Mich. 318. Judicial Notice of Time of Rising of Sun. — The court will take judicial notice of the time of the rising and setting of the sun. Taylor v. Territory, (Ariz. 1901) 64 Pac. Rep. 423; State v. Gray, 23 Nev. 301 ; State v. Miller, 24 Utah 312. See also the title Judicial Notice, 904. 6. 2. Hour of Night Need Not Be Proved. — Lei- senberg v . State, 60 Neb. 628. 66. 1. Actual Commission of Felony. — State v. Taylor, 136 Mo. 66; State v. Peebles, 178 Mo. 475 ; State v. Crawford, 8 N. Dak. 539, 73 Am. St. Rep. 772 ; Moseley v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 559; Ferris v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 140. 2. Walker v State, 44 Fla. 466. See also Pilot -u. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 515. Intent — Question of Fact for Jury. — Ragland v. State, 71 Ark. 65; State v. Worthen, 11 1 Iowa 267. Presumption of Intent from Breaking and En- tering — Usually Theft. — State v. Worthen, in Iowa 267. Intent Must Be Proved. — If the indictment al- leges an intent to steal a specific article, such intent must be proved before a conviction may be had. Rush v. State, 114 Ga. 113. On an indictment for burglary with intent to murder, it is error to admit statements of the prosecutrix that she was afraid the defendant would kill her, there being no evidence of any threats or acts on the part of the defendant. Trevenio v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 42 S. W. Rep. 594. Evidence Held Insufficient to Prove Intent. — In Price -u. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 185, evidence that the defendant tore a board off of the house of the prosecutrix, but went away when commanded, was held not to be enough to support an indictment for an attempt to commit burglary with intent to rape. See also Taylor v. State, (Miss. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 498 ; Mason v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 689. 67. 1. Evidence Tending to Prove Another Offense. — State v. Ellsworth, 130 N. Car. 690; Denton v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 427 ; McAnally v. State (Tex. Crim. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep. 404; McCoy v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 47- 2. Connection Between Two Offenses. — State v. Donavan, 125 Iowa 239; State v. Bates, 182 Mo. 70; Adams v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 1058 ; Glenn v . State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 757. Burning Building to Conceal Burglary. — It is competent for the state to show that subsequent to the alleged burglary the defendant set fire to the building burglarized in order to conceal the traces of guilt. Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 5°9- Attempt to Escape from Jail May Be Shown. — State v. Wrand, 108 Iowa 73. 4. Proof that Building Was Closed. — Adkin- son v. State, (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 522. Evidence Held Sufficient to Prove Breaking and Entry. — Proof that the door of an apartment was closed at noon, that the defendant was dis- covered inside between one and two o'clock, and that the door was always kept closed, was held to be sufficient to show that the defendant opened the door. People v. Gartland, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 534. Proof of Breaking Essential. — Mere proof that property is stolen from a house, into which apparently no entry could have been made save by unlocking a door, is not enough to show a breaking. Lester v. State, 106 Ga. 371. 68. 1. Evidence of Conspiracy. — State v. Donavan, 125 Iowa 239. 2. Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction — California. — People v. Lang, 142 Cal. 482; People v. Sears, 119 Cal. 267; People v. Brady, 133 Cal. xx, 65 Pac. Rep. 823; People v. Joy, 135 Cal. xix, 66 Pac. Rep. 964. Georgia. — Holland, v. State, 112 Ga. 540; Davis v. State, 105 Ga. 808. Iowa. — State v. Marshall, 105 Iowa 38 ; State v. Raphael, 123 Iowa 452, 101 Am. St. Rep. 334; State v. McPherson, (Iowa 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 738. Kentucky. — Jones v. Com., (Ky. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 1183; Short v. Com., (Ky. 1903) 76 S. W. Rep. 11. Michigan. — People v. Hogan, 123 Mich. 233; People v. McDonald, 133 Mich. 366. Mississippi. — Cook v. State, (Miss. 1900) 28 So. Rep. 833. Nebraska. — Kennedy v. State, (Neb. 1904) • 99 N. W. Rep. 645. 793 tt» 79 BURGLAR Y— BUSINESS. Vol. V. 69. IV. Attempts. — See notes 2, 3. V. Possession of Btjbglabs' Tools. — See note 4. TO. BURS. — See note 3. 72. BUSINESS. — See notes 1, 2. New Jersey. — State v. Wines, 65 N. J. L. 31. Afew York. — People v. Lyons, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 174. Texas. — Harraway a. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S- W- Rep, 2.6,2 ; Martin v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep, 270; Rocba v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 69; Cogshall v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1900) 58 S. W. Rep. ion ; Diekson v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 64 S- W. Rep. 1043; Hollengshead v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 67 S. W. Rep. j 14; BlackweU v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 73 S. W. Rep, 960; Miller v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep, 800; Brown v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 936; Perry v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1904) 78 S. W. Rep. 5,13. Washington. — State v. Norris, 27 Wash. 45.3- Wisconsin. — Grimshaw v. State, 98 Wis. 612; Hunt v. State, 103 Wis. 559. What Constitutes "Taking Away," — Under the Kentucky statute forbidding entering and " taking away " property, a conviction is proper if the defendant is. discovered in a house with a basket packed with articles, taken from a trunk. Asportation from the house is not essential. Loving v. Com., 107 Ky, 575, 68. 3. Evidence Not Sufficient to Convict. — State v. Riggs, 74 Minn. 460 ; James v. State, 77 Miss. 370, 78 Am. St. Rep. 5.27 ; Richardson v. State, (Miss. 1903) 33 So. Rep, 44 1 ; State v. King, 174 Mo. 647; State v. Dashman, 153 Mo. 454 ; People v. Cronk, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 206 ; Porter w. State, (Tex. Crim. 1899) so S. W. Rep. 380 ; Grant v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 275 ; Brooks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 924 ; Stevens v« State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 549 ; Garcia v. State, (Tex- Crim. J902) 70 S. W- Rep. 95 ; Brocks v. State, (Tex. Crim. 1902) 70 S. W. Rep. 419 ; Bundick v . State, 97 Va. 783. eaih of Member. — Supreme Council, etc., v. Champe, (C. C. A.) 127 Fed. Rep. 541 ; Pokrefky v. De- troit Firemen's Fund Assoc, 121 Mich. 456; Williams v. Supreme Council, etc., 80 N. Y. App. Div. 402. See also Roxbury Lodge No. 184 v. Hocking, 60 N. J. L. 439. And see the title Benevolent or Beneficial Associations, 1065. 1 et seq, 4. Must Be Seasonable — District of Columbia. — Walker v. Johnson, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 97- Illinois. — People v. Chicago Live Stock Exch., 170 I1L 556, 62 Am. St. Rep. 404; Board of Trade v. Riordan, 94 111. App. 298 ; Modern Woodmen of America v. Wieland, 109 111. App. 340. Minnesota. — Tebo v. Supreme Council, etc., 89 Minn. 3 ; Thibert v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 78 Minn. 448. Missouri. — State v. St. Louis Medical Soc, 91 Mo. App. 76. Nebraska. — Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kin- ney, 64 Neb. 808. New Jersey, — O'Neill v. Supreme Council, etc, 70 N. J. L. 410. New York. — Weber v. Supreme Tent, etc., 172 N. Y. 490, 92 Am. St. Rep. 753 ; Browh v. Supreme Ct., etc., 176 N. Y. 132; Grossmeyer v. District No. 1, (Supm. Ct. Tr. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 577; Ra'nney v. Bowery Sav. Batik, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 301; Stein v Marks, (Supm. Ct. Spec T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 140'; McNeil v. Southern Tier Masonic Relief Assoc, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 587; Beach v. Supreme Tent, etc., 74 N. Y. App. Div. 527, affirmed 177 N. Y. 100 ; Kennedy v. Local Union No. 726, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 243 ; Fargo v. Supreme Tent, etc, 96 N. Y. App. Div. 491. Pennsylvania. — See Alters v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Protective Assoc, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272. Tennessee. — Bearden v. People's Bldg., etc, Assoc, (Tenn Ch. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 64. 98. 7. /« re Gaylord, m Fed. Rep. 717; Board of Trade v. Nelson, 162 111. 431, 53 Am. St. Rep. 312; Central Stock, etc, Exch. v. Board of Trade, 196 111. 39^- 8. Expulsion. — Fay v. Supreme Tent, etc., (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 427. 10. Other Instances of by-laws held to be rea- sonable and valid are the following : A by-law of a benevolent organization which prohibited the members thereof from joining any society not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. Mazurkiewicz v. St. Adelbertus Aid Soc, 127 Mich. 145, 8 Detroit Leg. N. 253. A by-law which provides that no party shall be repre- sented by counsel in a matter under the in- vestigation of the board of directors. Greene v. Board of Trade, 63 111. App. 446, affirmed 174 111. 585. A rule of a corporation that its members shall' secure shippers by issuing a bond. Warren v. Louisville Leaf Tobacco Exch., (Ky. 1900) 55 S. W. Rep. 912. A by- law of an association providing that no mem- ber thereof shall furnish material to any per- son indebted at the time to another member. Brewster v. Miller's Sons Co., 101 Ky. 368. A by-law of - a beneficial organization providing that a member in arrears of dues for thirteen weeks or more shall not be entitled to receive benefits until thirteen weeks after settling all arrears. Littleton v. Wells, etc., Council, etc., 98 Md. 453. A by-law prohibiting smoking dur- ing the business hours of a merchant's ex- change. Albers v. Merchant's Exch., 138 Mo. 140. A by-law requiring members of a bene- ficial society to give notice to the secretary within twenty-four hours after being taken sick in order to be entitled to sick benefits. Falcone v. Societa, etc., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 30 Misc. (N. Y.) 106. A by-law which provides that a member reinstated after suspension shall be deprived of benefits for six months. Hart v. Adams' Cylinder, etc., Assoc, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 580. A by-law of a beneficial society deny- ing benefits to the beneficiaries of suicides. Chambers v. Supreme Tent of Knights, etc., 200 Pa. St. 244, 86 Am. St. Rep. 716. A by- law which deprives a member of a beneficial p.ociety of the benefits of the organization when in arrears of dues. Alters v. Journeymen Brick- layers' Protective Assoc, 43 W. N. C. (Pa.) 336. 99. 6. Kennedy v. Local Union No. 726, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 243. 8. Reasonableness Question for Court. — Bear- den v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 64. 100. 2. Must Be Certain and General. — Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Powhatan Imp. Co., 87 Md. 59 ; Domes v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 75 Miss. 480 ; Bearden v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 64. 3. Binding Effect upon Members — United Slates. — Columbia Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Jun- quist, 1 1 1 Fed. Rep. 645 ; Mazurkiewicz v. St, Adelbertus Aid Soc, 127 Mich. 145. Connecticut. — Masonic Mut. Ben. Assoc f . Severson, 71 Conn. 719. Delaware. — Emmons v. Hope Lodge No. 21, 1 Marv. (Del.) 187. 799 iei-107 BY-LAWS— CALL. Vol. V. 101. Inconvenience of By-laws. — See note 2. 103. 2. As to Strangers — One Not a Member. — See note 4. VI. Construction and Intebpbetation — 1. General Principle! — Effect of Practical Construction by Usage of Corporation. — See note "J. Penal Provision! — Forfeitures. — See note 8. 103. See note i. By-law Conferring Powers upon Directors. — See note 3- Eules of Benevolent Societies — Liberal Construction. — See note 4. 2. By-law Void in Part and Valid in Part. — See note 7. 104. VII. Enforcement. — See note i. Benevolent Associations. — See note 3. BY-ROAD. — See note 6. 106. CALCULATED. — See note 3. 107. CALL. — See notes 2, 3, 4. Illinois. — Mechanics, etc., Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Vierling, 66 111. App. 621, 179 111. 524; Greene v. Board of Trade, 63 111. App. 446, affirmed 174 111. 585. Iowa. — Farmers Mut. Hail Ins. Assoc, v. Slattery, 115 Iowa 410. Maine. — Ladd v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 06 Me. 510. Mississippi. — Hunderraark v. New , South Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Miss. 1901) 29 So. Rep. 528. Missouri. — Albers v. Merchants' Exch., 138 Mo. 140; Purdy v. Bankers' L. Assoc, 101 Mo. App. 91. Nebraska. — Jackson v. South Omaha Live Stock Exch., 49 Neb. 687 ; Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kinney, 64 Neb. 808. New York. — -Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y. 287 ; Jennings v. Chelsea Div. Ben. Fund Soc, etc., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 556 ; Ferguson -u. Harlem Sav. Bank, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 43 Misc. (N. Y.) 10 ; Stein v. Marks, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 44 Misc. (N. Y.) 140. Ohio. — Cheney v. Ketcham, 7 Ohio Dec 183, s Ohio N. P. 139. Pennsylvania. — Stark v. Byers, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 517; Marshall v. Pilots' Assoc, 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 644. Tennessee. — Bearden v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, (Tenn. Ch. 1898) 49 S. W. Rep. 64. Utah. — Stilwell v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 19 Utah 257. West Virginia. — Kalbitzer v. Goodhue, 52 W. Va. 435- Wisconsin. — Wood v. Chamber of Commerce, 119 Wis. 367; Langnecker v. Grand Lodge, etc, in Wis. 279, 87 Am. St. Rep. 860. 100. 4. Members Chargeable with Notice, — Columbia Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Junquist, in Fed. Rep. 645; Emmons v. Hope Lodge No. 21, 1 Marv. (Del.) 187 ; Purdy v. Bankers' L. Assoc, 101 Mo. App. 91 ; Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kin- ney, 64 Neb. 808 ; Supreme Council, etc, v. Adams, 68 N. H. 236 ; Jennings v. Chelsea Div. Ben. Fund Soc, etc., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 556; Stilwell v. People's Bldg., etc., Assoc, 19 Utah 257. 101. 2. Walker v. Johnson, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144. 102. 4. Downes v. Bennett, 63 Kan. 653. 7. Construction of By-law. — In a controversy as to the meaning of a by-law, the intent and 800 design of its framer, if ascertainable, should prevail. Baltimore Bldg., etc., Assoc, v. Pow- hatan Imp. Co., 87 Md. 59. 8. Penal Provisions — Forfeitures. — In re Gay- lord, in Fed. Rep. 717; Thibert v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 78 Minn. 448. 103. 1. In re Gaylord, in Fed. Rep. 717. 3. See Alters v. Journeymen Bricklayers' Pro- tective Assoc, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272, holding invalid a by-law conferring upon directors the power of alteration and amendment. 4. Leahy v. Mooney, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 829. 7. Lariviere v. La Corporation, etc., 21 Quebec Super. Ct. 46, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 103, and supporting the whole text paragraph. 104. 1. Enforcement of By-laws. — Littleton v. Wells, etc., Council, etc., 98 Md. 453 ; Hart v. Adams Cylinder, etc., Assoc, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 580 ; Jennings v. Chelsea Div. Ben. Fund Soc, etc., (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 556. 3. See Richter v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 137 Cal. 8. Proper Imposition of Penalty Mnst Appear. — A forfeiture will not be enforced on the ground of nonpayment of a fine where it does not ap- pear affirmatively that the fine was properly imposed. Leahy v. Mooney, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 39 Misc. (N. Y.) 829. 6. See Clement v. Bettle, 65 N. J. L. 675. 106. 3. Instruction. — The word calcu- lated, in an instruction as to a deadly weapon calculated to produce death, is synonymous with the words " fitted," " adapted," or "suited." Smallwood v. Com., (Ky. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 248. Calculated to Deceive — Trade Mark. — Sec Aerators, etc., v. Tollitt, (1902) 2 Ch. 319. 107. 2. See White v. Treat, 100 Fed. Rep. 290. 3, Germania Iron Min. Co. v. King, 94 Wis. 439; American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398. 4. On Call. — Territory v. Hopkins, 9 Okla. 153, quoting 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 107. See also Bacon v. Bacon, 94 Va. 686. Call for Trial. — See Fossett v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 117. Call an Election — Synonymous with Order. — Vol. V. CAN— CANALS. 110-136 110. CAN. — See note i. In Rizer v. People, 18 Colo. App. 40, the court said : " The judgment below awards a peremp- tory writ commanding the respondents to call a special election. Exception is taken to the phraseology. The word used in the statute is ' order.' The meaning of the language of the judgment cannot be very well misunderstood. It uses call as synonymous with ' order.' Nevertheless it is not strictly accurate, and, al- though we think the judgment good as it stands, to obviate possible technical objection it should be amended so as to conform to the statutory phraseology." 110. 1. As Denoting Possibility. — See New Jersey Electric R. Co. v. Miller, 59 N. J. L. 423. CANALS. By J. E. Brady. 115. III. AUTHORIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION with Requirements. — See note 2. 116. See note 1. IV. Power to Exact Tolls - Rates of Toll. — See»note I. V. Duties and Liabilities 117. 119. ISO. note 3. 131. 133. 133. 134. 136. - Compensation — Compliance Express Authority. — See note 3. of Owners — 1. In General. — See See note i. 2. As to Bridges — Public Roads. — See note 2. Ways Laid Out After Canal Constructed. — See note 2. Personal Injuries. — See note 3. 3. As to Navigation. — See note 1. When Special Damage must Be Shown. — See note I. 4. As to Surplus Water. — See note 3. 115. 3. Compensation — Statutory Prerequi- sites, — Miller v. Wisenberger, 61 Ohio St. 561 ; Smith v. State, 59 Ohio St. 278. 116. 1. Davis v. Port Arthur Channel, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 87 Fed. Rep. 512. 117. 3. New York Cement Co. v. Consoli- dated Rosendale Cement Co., 178 N. Y. 167. 119. 1. A Successor to the Original Canal Owner cannot exact any greater rates than were allowed in the original charter. New York Cement Co. v. Consolidated Rosendale Cement Co., 178 N. Y. 167. 120. 3. General Rule as to Duty in Construc- tion and Operation — Liability for Damages.— Mullen v- Lake Drummond Canal, etc., Co., 130 N. Car. 496 ; Bullock v. Lake Drummond Canal, etc., Co., 132 N. Car. 179; Pinnix v. Lake Drummond Canal, etc., Co., 132 N. Car. 124. Where a License Has Been Granted to a canal company to flood a part of the grantor's land for the purpose of maintaining a canal the grantor cannot hold the company liable for in- cidental damages which accrue to his remain- ing land. Nunnamaker v. Columbia Water Power Co., 47 S. Car. 485, 58 Am. St. Rep. 90s. 121. 1. In Case of State Ownership. — Zorn v. State, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 163. Where the employees of the state are negli- gent in failing to attend to a waste weir the owner of a boat damaged thereby may recover against the state. Shannahan v. State, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 239. One whose premises are injured by a leak jn the canal bank may recover against the state. jCrowley n. State, 90 N. Y. App. Div, 613. j Supp. E. of 1— 51 8oj 122. 2. Duty of Canal Company as to Bridges. — Ft. Wayne Water Power Co. v. Allen County, 24 Ind. App. 514; Allen County v. Ft. Wayne Water Power Co., 17 Ind. App. 36; Book v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 207 Pa. St. 138. Public Bridge — Right of Canal Company. — Where a bridge is constructed over a canal by the public authorities the canal company may compel the authorities to build the bridge at a certain height over the canal in accordance with a previous regulation of the canal company. Morris Canal, etc., Co. v. Chosen Freeholders, 61 N. J. L. 129. 123. 2. Ft. Wayne Water Power Co. v. Allen County, 24 Ind. App. 514. 3. Liability for Personal Injuries. — Book v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 207 Pa. St. 138. 124. 1, Liability as to Navigation. — See McKay v. Reg., 6 Can. Exch. 1. 126. 1. Where Special Damage Must Be Shown. — Saylor v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 183 Pa. St. 167, 63 Am. St. Rep. 749, 41 W. N. C. (Pa.) 245. 3. Unlawful Disposition of Waste Water, — Where it was provided by statute that the " waste water " of a canal should be discharged into another canal, it was held that "waste water " meant all water not legitimately needed for the purposes of navigation, and that the company owning the first canal had no right to sell water to manufacturers or otherwise so to dispose of it as to prevent it from passing into the other canal. Rochdale Canal Co. v. Manchester Ship Canal Co., 85 L, T, N. g, 58s. 137-133 CANALS — CAPE. Vol. V. 127. 5. When Abandoned. — See notes 3, 4. 128. CANCEL — CANCELLATION . — See note 2. 130. CANDIDATE. — See note 1. 131. CANVASS. — See note 6. 132. CAPABLE. — See note 1. 133. CAPACITY. — See note 1. CAPE. — See note 2. 127. 3. Abandonment. — Where a company has abandoned its canal, which had been de- stroyed by floods, a private individual is not entitled to an action for damages nor to com- pel the restoration of the canal. Saylor v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 183 Pa. St. 167, 63 Am. St. Rep. 749, 41 W. N. C. (Pa.) 245. Abutting Owners cannot enjoin the abandon- ment of a canal. Vought v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 58 Ohio St. 123. 4. State Canals. — Vought v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 58 Ohio St. 123. Where Public Street Taken. — Where the state abandoned a canal, for which a public street had been taken, it was held that the original easement thereupon revested in the public. Huntington v. Townsend, 29 Ind. App. 269. 12§. 2. Matter of Alger, (Surrogate Ct.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 143. What Constitutes Canceling — Necessity of Cross Lines — Canceled. — See Matter of Alger, (Sur- rogate Ct.) 38 Misc. (N. Y.) 143 ; Matter of Akers, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 461. Whether Writing the Word " Canceled " upon an Instrument Itself Amounts to a Cancellation, see Matter of Akers, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 461. 130. 1. The English Municipal Corporation Act 1882, § yy, provides that " candidate means a person elected, or having been nominated, or .having declared himself a candidate for elec- tion." Harford v. Linskey, (1899) 1 Q. B. 852. 131. 6. A Canvasser Is Not a Traveling Sales- man within an act prohibiting the levying of a license tax. In this case the court said : " Canvass is defined in the Standard Dic- tionary of the English language to mean : ' To go about (a region or district) to solicit votes, orders, subscriptions, or the like ; traverse (a district or region) for inquiry, or in the effort to obtain something ; * * * as, to canvass a territory for a subscription-book,' etc." Price Co. v. Atlanta, 105 Ga. 358. A commercial drummer, or canvasser, who goes out on the road soliciting orders for his house, whether it be located in or out of the state, and who takes with him samples of the goods or wares his house deals in, is not a " traveling vender " within the meaning of sec- tion 13 of Act No. 150 of 1890. Pegues v. Ray, So La. Ann. 574. Includes Tally Sheet. — A canvass under the provisions of the New York Election Law in- cludes not only the counting of the votes by the inspectors, but the record of the count by the poll clerks upon the tally sheet. This tally sheet, therefore, is made a substantial part of the canvass. Matter of Stewart, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 209. 132. 1. Capable of Taking Effect. — Where under a special power of appointment a testator appoints to the uses or tru^S of an an_te^edent instrument, or such of them as are "capable of taking effect," the phrase " capable of tak- ing effect " may be construed as meaning what the law allows to take effect, and need not be confined to a reference to the uses or trusts which, by reason of the deaths of parties and other intervening circumstances, are still in fact existing, or capable oi coming into ex- istence ; and if therefore some of the uses or trusts fail by reason of the cestuis que trust not being objects of the power, or by reason of the rule against perpetuities being infringed, those uses»or trusts may be treated as excluded from the appointment. In re Finch, (1903) 2 Ch. 486. 133. 1. Capacity to Sue Distinguished from Cause of Action. — " There is a difference be- tween capacity to sue, which is the right to come into court, and a cause of action, which is the right to relief in court. Incapacity to sue exists when there is some legal disability, such as infancy or lunacy, or a want of title in the plaintiff to the character in which he sues. The plaintiff was duly appointed receiver, and has a legal capacity to sue as such, and hence could bring the defendants into court by the service of a summons upon them, even if he had no cause of action against them. On the other hand, an infant has no capacity to sue, and hence could not lawfully cause the defend- ants to be brought into court, even if he had a good cause of action against them. In- capacity to sue is not the same as insufficiency of facts to sue upon." Ward v. Petrie, 157 N. Y. 3 1 1 . See also Hanna v. People's Nat. Bank, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 224. 2. Shoulder Wrap. — An indictment for lar- ceny describing the property stolen as " one cape, of the value, etc.," is sufficient. The court said : " In the general popular and usual acceptation the word cape means either a gar- ment or part of a garment used for covering the shoulders of the wearer, or a neck or nar- row strip or point of land extending some dis- tance into a body of water. The rule is, ' the indictment must state with reasonable certainty what was stolen.' (2 Bishop on Crim. Pro., 8 969.) A natural formation of the earth — as a cape of land — cannot be the subject of lar- ceny, hence it would be wholly unreasonable to say it was uncertain in which sense, in ordinary acceptation, the word cape was used. The word cape is sometimes employed as descriptive of a kind of wine made at the Cape of Good Hope, but in such instance it is not used as a noun. It is, therefore, clear it was not in that sense that it was used in the indictment. It is urged that the word cape means the coping of a wall, and also ears of corn broken off in threshing ; but we find frorn St|nd.a,rd_ d,je$ona,rjes an^[ cycjo,, Vol. V. CAPITAL— CARE. 134-147 134. CAPITAL — CAPITAL STOCK. — See notes 4, 5. 136. Capital and Capital Stock. — See note I. 137. See note 1. 138. See note 1. 1 39. Capital Stock Distinguished from Shares of Stook. — See note 2. 143. CAPTION. — See note 1. CAPTURE. — See note 3. 144. CAR. — See note 2. [CARBON. — See note 2a. J 147. CARE. — See note 2. psedias no such meanings are given the word except in certain restricted localities in the northern part of England. We are to accept the word in its plain, ordinary, and popular meaning in our country and among our people. We think the description of the property is set forth in the indictment with reasonable certainty." Waller v. People, 175 111. 222. 134. 4. State v. Board of Assessors, 48 La. Ann. 35. 5. People v. Feitner, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 284, affirmed 167 N. Y. 1, quoting 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 134. A Seat in the New York Stock Exchange owned by a nonresident is not capital invested in business within the New York Tax Law taxing capital of nonresidents invested in business in New York. People v. Feitner, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 280, affirmed 167 N. Y. 1. 136. 1. Chicago Union Traction Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 112 Fed. Rep. 611. See Cooke v. Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 315; State v. Lewis, 118 Wis. 432. Declaring Dividends. — American Steel, etc., Co. v. Eddy, 130 Mich. 267, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 134-142. 137. 1. Batterson's Appeal, 72 Conn. 374; State v. Lewis, 118 Wis. 432. 13§. 1. State v. Lewis, 118 Wis. 432. Capital Stock in the Sense of Capital. — People v. Pond, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 330. Franchise. — State Board of Equalization v. People, 191 111. 528; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Negley, (Ky. 1901) 63 S. W. Rep. 989; State v. Duluth Gas., etc., Co., 76 Minn. 96 ; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Wright, 132 Fed. Rep. 912. Withdrawing Capital Stock. — American Steel, etc., Co. v. Eddy, 130 Mich. 267, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 134, 1 142. 139. 2. Capital Stock Distinguished from Shares of Stock. — Brown v. French, 80 Fed. Rep. 168 ; People v. Roberts, 154 N. Y. 101 ; People v. Knight, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 164. Capital Stock — Taxation. — People v. Knight, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 1 64 ; People v. Dederick, 161 N. Y. 195. 143. 1. Title and Caption Synonymous.— Memphis St. R. Co. v. State, no Tenn. 598. Indictment. — State v. Mo wry, 21 R. I. 376- 3. Capture Not Synonymous with Prize. — Cap- ture and " prize " are not convertible terms, and for the subject of capture to be made prize for the benefit of the captors the taking must meet the conditions imposed by the stat- utes. Manila Prize Cases, 188 U. S. 259. 144. 2. Hand Car. — Benson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 75 Minn. 163; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Webh, 31 Tex, Civ, App. 498; Peres y, San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 28 Tex. Civ. App. 255 ; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Jennings, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Rep. 822 ; Seery v. Gulf., etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 950. Car Load — Contract. — See North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Seaboard Air Line System, 127 N. Car. 283. A Locomotive Engine is a car within the mean- ing of the United States statute requiring cars engaged in interstate commerce to be equipped with automatic couplers. Johnson v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 196 U. S. 1. But see Bryce v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 119 Iowa 274. Tender a Car. — In Winkler v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 4 Penn. (Del.) 80, the court said : " The tender of a locomotive engine engaged in interstate commerce is a car within the scope of the Act of Congress, which uses the general terms ' locomotive,' car, or ' train.' A tender is defined to be a car by Webster. The tender is not a locomotive engine, or component part thereof, but is the small car carrying water and fuel for the engine, and to which the first passenger or freight car of the train is usually coupled." " Car Service " is explained as meaning a de- murrage charge made by the railway companies of one dollar per day on each car detained over forty-eight hours in unloading. Evering- ham v. Halsey, 108 Iowa 713. " The Car Fuller is what its name implies, a device used to pull cars by means of a rope attachment hitched to cars and operated by means of a drum or spool, around which the rope winds and unwinds, the power being ap- plied by machinery attached to the engine." Decatur Cereal Mill Co. v. Gogerty, 80 111. App. 635. 2a. In Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Lorain Steel Co., (C. C. A.) 117 Fed. Rep. 251, the court said : " Carbon is a broad word. It may be used to include a diamond or soot, but, according to all the canons of patent con- struction, it must be taken here as meaning the carbon known at the time to electricians under that name, — the ordinary carbon of the art, such as was employed for the pencils of arc lamps, for battery plates, for rheostats or artificial resistances, and other similar electri- cal purposes. It was made up of some variety of coke either from petroleum or bituminous coal, the structure of the material being ag- glomerate ; that is, it is practically numerous particles cemented together, leaving pores be- tween the particles, but not large openings." 147. 2. Promise to Support and Take Car* of a Person. — See Kelly v. Jeffe.ris, 3 Penn, (Del.) 286. * %0\ 148-151 CARELESS — CARRIA GE. Vol. V. 148. CARELESS — CARELESSNESS. — See note 2. [CARETAKER. — See note 2a.] 151. CARRIAGE. — See note 2. 148. 2. Libel and Slander — Careless Manner. — See Ratzel v. New York News Pub. Co., 67 N. Y. App. Div. 598. Carelessly Does Not Import Criminal Intent. — Garver v. Territory, 5 Okla. 342. Careless in the Sense of Negligent. — Great- house v. Croan, (Indian Ter. 1903)) 76 S. W. Rep. 273 ; Norfolk Beet-Sugar Co. v. Preuner, 55 Neb. 656. Careless in the Sense of Reckless. — -Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, no Tenn. 396. 2a. In Hill v. Coates, (Supm. Ct. App. T.) 34 Misc. (N. Y.) 535, the court, said: "A caretaker is denned as one employed ' in a building or on an estate, during the absence of the owner, to look after goods or property of any kind' (Cent. Diet. 823), or as 'one em- ployed to watch over or keep in order property, as a house, in the absence of the family ' (Stand. Diet.)." 151. 2. Bicycle — Law of the Koad. — Taylor v. Union Traction Co., 184 Pa. St. 465. Toll Act. — • Simpson v. Teignmouth, etc.. Bridge Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 405, holding a bicycle not a carriage. And see Murfin v. Detroit, etc., Plank-Road Co., 113 Mich. 675, Compare Cannan v. Abingdon, (1900) 2 Q. B. 66. Highway Defects. — A bicycle is not a car- riage within a statute providing that highways shall be kept in repair so as to be reason- ably safe for carriages. Richardson v. Dan- vers, 176 Mass. 413; Fox v. Clarke, 25 R. I. SIS- A Motor Bicycle is a carriage within an act requiring a license for a carriage drawn or propelled upon a road by mechanical power. O'Donoghue v. Moon, 90 L. T. N. S. 843. 804 CARRIERS OF GOODS. By John Simpson. 159. II. Duty to Receive and Carey — 1. Extent and Character of Duty — a. GENERALLY — Nature of Goods — Payment of Charges. — See note I. Must Be Good Cause for Eefusal — Discrimination. — See note 2. 160. How the Duty Arises — Special Contract Unnecessary. — See note I. Transportation Within Seasonable Time. — See notes 3, 4. Eefusal or Failure to Carry — Proximate Cause. — See note 7. 161. b. Goods Offered by Connecting Lines. — See note i. c. Hauling Cars of Other Companies — cars and Engines for other Lines. — See note 4. 162. A Eailroad Company Is Entitled to Proper Compensation. — See note 4. 2. Duty Enforceable by Mandamus. — See note 5. Usual Remedy. — See note 8. 163. 3. What Will Excuse Failure or Refusal to Carry — a. Generally — Where Goods Not of Character Carrier Transports. — See note I . 159. 1. Duty to Beceive and Carry — General Eule — United States. — Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 445; Bluthen- thal v. Southern R. Co., 84 Fed. Rep. 920. Connecticut. — Lang v. Brady, 73 Conn. 707. Kentucky. — Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Oman, 115 Ky. 369. Michigan. — Atty.-Gen. v. American Express Co., 118 Mich. 682, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 158, 159. Missouri. — Steffen v. Mississippi River, etc., R. Co., 156 Mo. 322; Robert C. White Live Stock Commission Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Mo. App. 330. Nebraska. — ■ State v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 23. New Jersey. — Lanning v. Sussex R. Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 21. North Carolina. — Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 133 N. Car. 335. Pennsylvania. — Loraine v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 205 Pa. St. 132. South Carolina. — Mathis v. Southern R. Co., 6s S. Car. 271. Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431. Where Goods Are Destined to a Point Beyond the Carrier's Line the carrier cannot for that rea- son refuse to carry- Seasongood v. Tennes- see, etc., Transp. Co., (Ky. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 193. 9. No Discrimination, — Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 72 Am. St. Rep. 442. 160. 1. Special Contract to Carry Need Not Be Shown. — Nelson v. Great Northern R. Co., 28 Mont. 297 ; Mathias v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 271- 3. Must Forward Promptly. — U. S. Express Co. v. Hammer, 21 Ind. App. 186 ; Denman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 52 Neb. 140. 4. Mathis v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 271. 7. What Is Proximate Cause. — Seasongood v. Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., (Ky. 1899) 54 S. W. Rep. 193. 161 . 1. Must Accept and Carry Freight Offered by Other Companies. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dorsey Fuel Co., 112 111. App. 382; Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 111. 199 ; Thomas v. Frankfort, etc., R. Co., 116 Ky. 879, citing 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 160 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Short Line R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 567 ; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 93 Tex. 482 ; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bigham, (Tex. Civ. App. 1898) 47 S. W. Rep. 814; Inman v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39- 4. Duty to Haul Engines and Cars for Another Line. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Short Line R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 567. 162. 4. No Extra Charge. — See Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Short Line R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 567. 5. Mandamus to Compel Railroad Company to Beceive and Carry Freight. — Tift v. Southern R. Co., 123 Fed. Rep. 789; Bedford-Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Oman, 115 Ky. 369. See also State v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Neb. 1904) 99 N. W. Rep. 309. 8. Equitable Belief When Remedy at Law Is Inefficient. — Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 72 Am. St. Rep. 442 ; Cumberland Tele- phone, etc., Co., v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1850 ; State v. Chicago, etc., Co., (Neb. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 23; Loraine v. Pitts- burg, etc., R. Co., 205 Pa. St. 132. 163. 1. When Goods Not of Kind Carrier Ac- customed to Transport. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge Co., 170 111. 645. See also Wilson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 129 Fed. Rep. 774. Goods of Express Company — No Duty to Carry. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348. 805 163-176 CARRIERS OB GOODS. Vol. V. 163. note 3. 164. 165. 166. 167. TIOH — 1. 168. 169. 176. Particular Manner of Carriage for Certain Goods. — See note 2. Seasonable Begulations as to Time, Nature of Goods, and Mode of Carriage. See Prescribing Place for Delivery. — See note 2. Goods Defectively Packed. — See note 3. Line under Military Authority. — See note 8. Waiver of Bight to Object. — See note 9. b. Prepayment of Charges — Buie stated. — See note i. Usage. — See note 2. Acceptance for Carriage Sufficient Consideration. — See note 3. 4. Mode of Transportation to Be Employed. — See note 4. See note 1. ttt Duty to Have and to Furnish Facilities fob Tbanspobta- In Absence of Special Contract — At Common Law. — See note 2. Sufficient Facilities for Reasonably Prompt Carriage. — See note 3. Sudden and Unusual Press of Business. — See note I. Carrier's Duty Where Facilities Lacking — Connecting Lines. — See note 3. Acceptance of Goods — Waiver — Consent of Shipper. — See note 5- 2. Special Contract to Furnish Cars. — See note 2. 163. 2. Certain Methods of Carriage for Cer- tain Goods. — Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 445. 3. Time for Transportation — Character of Arti- cle — Kinds of Conveyances. — Robinson v. Balti- more, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 753; Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. Rep. 445. 164. 2. Must Be Tendered at Proper Place. — Robinson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 753. 3. Goods Defectively Packed. — Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. Bates Mach. Co., 98 111. App. 311, affirmed 200 111. 636, 93 Am. St. Rep. 218. Goods Held to Be Properly Packed. — See Blu- thenthal v. Southern R. Co., 84 Fed. Rep. 920. 165. 8. Contraband of War. — Refusal of the customs authorities to clear the vessel because the goods are contraband of war is a sufficient excuse. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 112 Fed. Rep. 829, reversed 120 Fed. Rep. 873, 57 C. C. A. 533- 9. Waiver of Bight to Object. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Byrne, 205 111. 9. 166. 1. Failure of Shipper to Prepay Freight Charges. — McEachran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 115 Mich. 318; Berry v. Southern R. Co., 122 N. Car. 1002. See also Montpelier, etc., R. Co. v. Macchi, 74 Vt. 403. Demand Fixes Beginning of Carrier's Liability. — Where a demand is made, the carrier's lia- bility for negligent delay begins on prepayment of the freight. Louisville, etc., Packet Co. v. Bottorff, (Ky. 1904) 77 S. W. Rep. 920. See also infra, this title, 183. 1. 2. Bnle Controlled by Usage. — Southern In- dian Express Co. v. U. S. Express Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 1022, 35 C. C. A. 172, affirming 88 Fed. Rep. 659. 8. Shipper Need Not Allege Payment of Charges. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Allgood, 113 Ala. 163; Porter v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 132 to. Car. 7i- Tender of Freight Charges Sufficient. — Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Steamer Red River, 106 La. 42- 806 4. Mode of Transportation — Absence of Express Contract. — Post v. Southern R. Co., 103 Tenn. 184; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine, (Tex. Civ. App. '903) 73 S. W. Rep. 540; Bessling v. Houston, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 80 S. W. Rep. 639. v 167. 1. Usual Boute — Presumption. — Louis- ville, etc., R. Co. v. Gidley, 119 Ala. 523; Hous- ton, etc., R. Co. v. Houx, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 502 ; S. D. Seavey Co. v. Union Transit Co., 106 Wis. 394. Option as to Mode of Transportation Must Be Exercised Reasonably. — Stewart v. Comer, 100 Ga. 754, 62 Am. St. Rep. 353. 2. Rule at Common Law. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 79 S. W. Rep. 614. 3. Railroad and Steamship Carriers — Duty as to Facilities. — Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 72 Am. St. Rep. 442 ; Hallum v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., (Miss. 1899) 24 So. Rep. 909; Gann v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 34; Strough v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 584, affirmed 181 N. Y. 533 ; Nichols v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 24 Utah 83, 91 Am. St. Rep. 778. Refrigerator Cars. — Mathis v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 271. 168. 1. Effect of Unusual Press of Business. — Strough v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 584, affirmed 181 N. Y. 533. 169. 8. Carrier Must Inform Shipper of In- ability to Carry.— Shea v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 Minn. 102 ; Nichols v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 24 Utah 83, 91 Am. St. Rep. 778. 5. Carrier Receiving Goods with Knowledge oi Obstruction. — See Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Hayne, 76 Miss. 538, supporting the paragraph of the original note, beginning "A different view." 170. 2. Weida v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Minn. 102 ; Currell v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 97 Mo. App. 93 ; Outland v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., T34 N. Car. 350 ; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 5 Ohio Dec. 659; International, etc.] R. Co. v. Aten, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 81 S. W. Vol. V. CARRIERS OF GOODS. 17© i ** 170. Obligations Determined by the Contract. — See note 4. 171. If the Agreement Is to Furnish Cars Unconditionally. — See notes I, 2. Consideration. — See note 3. How Faet of Existence of Special Contract Determined. — See note 4. 173. 3. Duty Declared by Statute — Case Must Be Brought Within Statute. — See notes 2, 3. 173. Written Application for Cars Bequired — Oral Application Insufficient. — See note 1. 175. 4. Cars Furnished Must Be Suitable and Safe. — See note 1. Cars Furnished the Property of Another Line. — See note 2. Acceptance by Shipper of Unfit Cars, with Knowledge. — See note 3. 176. 5. Tender of Goods by Shipper. — See note 2. 177. 7. Proximate or Remote Cause. — See note 1. Rep. 346; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hodge, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 39 S. W. Rep. 986. 170. 4. What Is a Seasonable lime under the contract is a question of law for the court. Out- land v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 134 N. Car. 35o. Breach of a Written Contract does not render the carrier liable for the statutory penalty. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Barrow, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 643. 171. 1. Act of God.— Outland v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 134 N. Car. 350. 2. Mathis v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. Car. 271 ; International, etc., R. Co. v. True, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 523. When Carrier Does Not Owns Cars. — It is im- material whether or not the carrier owned any cars at the time of the contract. Baxley v. Tallassee, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 183. 3. Sufficient Consideration. — An agreement to pay freight is a sufficient consideration. Out- land v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 134 N. Car. 35°- An obligation on the shipper to load the cars, and have weekly inspections and ship- ments, is a sufficient valuable consideration. Baxley v. Tallassee, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 183. 4. The Burden of Proof of the contract is on the shipper. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ray, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 691. 172. 2. Duty Declared by Statute. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Barrow, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 643 ; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan, (Tex. Civ. App. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1073. " Seasonable Time," in the absence of agree- ment, is a question of fact for the jury. Davis v. Texas, etc., R. Co., gi Tex. 505. The North Carolina Statute, Code N. Car., §§ 1964, 1967, does not limit the carrier's com- mon-law liability for negligence. Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 133 N. Car. 33s. Statute Proper Exercise of Police Power. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 53. 3. Where Duty Prescribed by Statute. — Inter- national, etc., R. Co. v. True, 23 Tex. Civ. App. S23. Statute to Be Strictly Construed. — Rev. Stat. Tex. (1895), art. 4497-4502, imposing a penalty for failure to furnish cars, is to be strictly con- strued. Houston, etc., K. Co. v. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 431. 173. 1. Texas Statute Fixing Penalty for Not Furnishing Cars. — • Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- row, (Tex. Civ. App. 1903) 77 S. W. Rep. 643. Sufficient Written Application. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes, (Tex. Civ. App. 1904) 83 S. W. Rep. 53. After the Carrier Has Refused the application it is not necessary, in order to maintain an action for damages, to offer the freight. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551. 175. 1. Cars Must Be Suitable for Purpose Bequired. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Fair- banks, (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. Rep. 467; Cooper v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 105 Ga. 83; Burke